Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 15th April, at Seven o'clock.

PETITION

British Museum

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition, which they have to submit to this House each year, explaining their financial position and praying for aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is, necessarily, attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds and the Trust cannot, with benefit to the public, be carried out without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer:
Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament, for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet.—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Chemicals (Home-made Explosives)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to recent accidents resulting from explosions caused by young people conducting experiments with chemicals which are freely on sale; and whether he will make a statement on the steps he has in mind to diminish the number of such accidents.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): These accidents result from experiments with chemicals which are not themselves explosive and of which, as they are in common use, the sale cannot be controlled. In the Guy Fawkes season, my Department issue Press and broadcast warnings of the dangers of home-made fireworks and explosives; and the last Report of Her Majesty's Inspector of Explosives calls attention to them. I hope that this Question and Answer will help to impress parents with the need to see that they are heeded.

Mr. Skeffington: Whilst thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask her whether it has been considered that it might be a wise step to ask the trade journals that circulate amongst purveyors of some of these proprietary chemicals if they could draw attention to these dangers? The Minister is aware that this has been done by the Pharmaceutical Society in relation to chemists. I gather that the Minister is also aware that most of the purchases are not made from pharmacists, and, therefore, if some attention could be drawn to the sale of items in other types of shop, it would be helpful.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sure that we have the same purpose in mind as the hon. Gentleman. One of the difficulties is that if we give too much publicity to such items we may encourage the very people to acquire them that we do not want to encourage. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have this matter under constant review, and we are as anxious as he is to prevent some of the unfortunate accidents of this sort that have occurred.

Aircraft (Nuclear Weapons)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in the organisation of preventive measures, besides those arranged by the Royal Air Force, to safeguard life in areas adjacent to the crashing of an aeroplane carrying nuclear bombs, in view of the admitted danger of the scattering of radio-active dust.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I would refer the hon. Member to the statements that I made on 4th and 27th February, to which I have at present nothing to add.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the fact that explosions are ruled out but it is now admitted that radioactive elements fatal to life may be distributed over a considerable area, is it not desirable to supplement any R.A.F. teams, because the planes in this country would fly over largely populated areas, whereas in America they would fly over deserts?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. That is why I said that we are keeping the standard instructions under review. If we obtain sufficiently exact information to enlarge upon the instructions we have given, then I will be glad to issue further instructions. But, at the moment, I have nothing more to add.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to issue special equipment to the fire service to enable it to cope with the hazard which will arise in such an emergency?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give a further answer on that subject today. The Prime Minister dealt with this matter on 10th December and gave an account of what equipment is at present available. I cannot go further at the moment.

Anglo-Egyptian Refugees

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Anglo-Egyptian refugees are still without work or private means; and what plans the Government have for these people.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: About 2,000 refugees, of whom some 900 are in hostels,

are still being assisted by the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. The total without employment includes children, housewives and others who look after families at home, and persons too old or infirm to work. Some of these have limited private means. The number registered for work is about 250. Every effort is made to help those able to work to find employment. In addition grants or loans for various purposes are made to adults to assist them to resettle here: and it is hoped that homes will be established for aged people who would be unable to look after themselves.

Mr. Wall: I appreciate all my hon. Friend and her Department have done to help these unfortunate people, but can she say how many of the hard core of refugees are of Maltese nationality? Further, can she say whether she has real hopes of being able to resettle all these people, or, if not, whether she has any idea of establishing permanent hostels when the temporary ones are closed?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I cannot tell my hon. Friend without notice exactly how many of the residue not resettled are Maltese. If he cares to put down a Question, I shall be delighted to give him an Answer. It is true to say that the Board is now getting down to the more difficult cases, and amongst those, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, are the Maltese who find our language difficult or who, in some cases, do not speak English at all or are in the process of learning it. The Board intends to publish a further report, when it has made more progress with resettlement and it has been established how many of the total number can be resettled in this country.

Tenants (Evictions)

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions he has issued to the Metropolitan Police when called to premises where a landlord proposes to evict a tenant.

Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir. The Metropolitan Police intervene in eviction cases only so far as may be necessary to prevent a breach of the peace, except in rare cases under the Small Tenements Recovery Act, 1838, when they may be authorised by the court to enter the premises.

Mr. Lipton: In order to preserve the good relations which normally prevail between Londoners and the London police, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, next October, the police will not be used under the Rent Act, 1957, to help landlords to evict tenants unless, at the least, there is a court order for possession obtained by the landlord beforehand? We do not want the police mixed up with these things any more than absolutely necessary.

Mr. Butler: It is normal for the police, if officers find that there is a dispute about the existence or terms of an order made by a rent tribunal, to refer the parties to the rent tribunal. In regard to the general matter to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I think that he can rely upon the discretion of the London police.

Magistrates' Courts (Fines)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, since magistrates' courts are reluctant to impose maximum fines, if he will introduce legislation to treble all maximum fines because of the depreciation of money, and so encourage more realistic monetary punishments to be inflicted.

Mr. R. A. Butler: It would not be appropriate to treble all existing fines without reference to the nature of the offence and the date when the fine was last fixed. I am, however, reviewing existing small statutory fines, and careful consideration is given to the level of fines in new legislation.

Mr. Osborne: I thank my right hon. Friend for looking into the matter, but will he bear in mind the undesirability of sending men to prison for short sentences and the greater desirability of imposing a fine as punishment? In view of the depreciation of money, ought not the amount to be increased according to the fall in the currency?

Mr. Butler: The difficulty of absolutely satisfying my hon. Friend is that one has to pay some attention to the nature of the offence and the date of the legislation which covers the fine. Of course, we shall review all these matters. I can, however, give no general undertaking.

Crimes of Violence

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in conducting the inquiries which he has set in motion concerning corporal punishment and crimes of violence, he will take note of the recent increase of robberies of wages.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The inquiry into crimes of violence to which I referred in replying to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend on 6th February is being carried out by the Department of Criminal Science at Cambridge University. I have no doubt that, in analysing the statistics, the Department will give due attention to robberies of wages.

Mr. Osborne: Can my right hon. Friend say when he expects to receive that report?

Mr. Butler: I could not give a date, but I am hoping for it before too long.

Mr. Page: When considering this report, will my right hon. Friend take into account also that these crimes would not occur if the payment of wages by cheque were allowed?

Mr. Osborne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take power to deport all British subjects not born in the United Kingdom who are proved guilty of crimes of violence.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Such information as is available to my right hon. Friend does not indicate a need for action on the lines suggested.

Mr. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend reconsider this matter and see that those who abuse the hospitality given them by this country are deported from the country?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The criminal statitsics are not compiled in such a way as to enable particulars of the country of origin of offenders to be extracted, but a special inquiry was made a few months ago of certain large police forces in whose areas there was a considerable colonial population, and the replies did not suggest that, in general, colonial or coloured people engage in crime to any greater extent than do natives of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that her Answer is most welcome, and that the suggestion contained in the Question of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) will be abhorrent to the majority of people in this country, it being the view of the most civilised people that it should be the seriousness of the crime which determines the punishment and not the place of origin of the criminal?

Parkhurst and Wandsworth Prisons

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers at Her Majesty's Prison, Parkhurst, are employed in inspecting the cells of men on the escape list prior to the transfer of such men to different cells.

Mr. R. A. Butler: When a prisoner on the escape list is transferred from his cell, two officers search it.

Mr. Collins: If, when inspected, the cells prove to be secure, why are the men transferred? Is it not then a case of transferring someone who is a bad security risk into the cell of another who is an equally bad risk? If that be so, is it not just as wasteful as digging holes and filling them up again, and could not some better means be found?

Mr. Butler: I should not so describe the administration of the Prison Commissioners. I should take a more lenient and generous view of their activities.

Mr. Collins: But will the Home Secretary look into the first point I raised about the unnecessary nature of the practice if the cells are secure?

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at the latest convenient date, what was the number of prisoners and the number of prison staff at Her Majesty's Prison, Parkhurst, and Her Majesty's Prison, Wandsworth, respectively.

Mr. R. A. Butler: On 25th February, 1958, there were 510 prisoners at Parkhurst prison and the staff numbered 286. The figures for Wandsworth were 1,374 and 301, respectively.

Mr. Collins: Is the Home Secretary aware that that is more than one officer to two prisoners in Parkhurst and nearly

one officer to eight prisoners in Wandsworth? Does it not seem that, if the numbers are only adequate in Parkhurst, Wandsworth is grossly understaffed? In order to relieve overcrowding and remedy this particular situation, will he consider transferring detainees at an earlier period in stage one from local prisons to Parkhurst and to other P.D. prisons?

Mr. Butler: There is a considerable difference between the régime in force at Wandsworth, which is a local prison, and that at Parkhurst, which is a central prison, because prisoners spend much more time out of their cells at Parkhurst, and, hence, more staff is necessary for supervision and so forth. I will pay attention to the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman says.

Preventive Detention (Prisoners)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average number of prisoners serving sentences of preventive detention during the years 1949 and 1957, respectively; and what in each of those years was the total cost involved.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In 1949 there was a daily average of 130 prisoners serving a sentence of preventive detention. The provisional average for 1957 is 1,311. I regret that separate figures for the cost of detaining preventive detention prisoners are not available. In 1949 the average cost for prisoners of all classes was £181 18s. 7d. The provisional average cost for 1957 is £341 19s. 11d.

Mr. Collins: Is the Home Secretary aware of the view that the great increase in the number of detainees is a handicap in fully implementing the hopes of rehabilitation implicit in preventive detention? Will he have regard also to the gross disparity of sentences inflicted in different courts—for example, ten years for stealing a chicken worth 16s. 2d.—and endeavour to find a way whereby there can be greater uniformity of sentence and the spirit and the letter of the Act can be carried out?

Mr. Butler: It is not for me to comment on the sentences. I can only comment on the result, which is that the long-term sentences are bringing about, partly, the result to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As regards preventive detention as a whole, we are making some


special research into the effects of it, and I would rather await the result of that research before giving final answers.

Prison Labour (Goods and Services)

Mr. J. Silverman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will instruct Her Majesty's Prison Commissioners to take steps to ensure that goods produced and services provided by prison labour should be offered at fair prices and should not unfairly undercut goods produced and services provided by disabled workers' trading organisations.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The Prison Commissioners have begun a review of this question in consultation with the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Silverman: I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply, but is he aware that there is very profound dissatisfaction, especially among blind people's organisations, about the present situation? This is especially true in Birmingham, where the shoe-repairing department of a blind men's organisation has lost a considerable order, which might conceivably have prevented the closing down of the department. Will he, therefore, energetically pursue the investigation?

Mr. Butler: It is because we were in some anxiety about points such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers that we authorised this review of the question, and I shall hope to give the results in due course.

Chief Constables

Mr. Lagden: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider introducing legislation to extend to the Secretary of State for the Home Department such power over chief constables as would seem necessary in order to enable Members of Parliament to raise Questions in the House of Commons concerning the conduct of police officers in provincial forces.

Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. An essential feature of our police service is that it is organised and controlled on a local basis.

Mr. Lagden: Does not the Secretary of State agree that to debar some Members

of this House from the right of Questions which is enjoyed by other Members is a serious thing? Would he not look at this matter further, having regard to the matters concerning chief constables which have recently been before our notice?

Mr. Butler: It is an anomaly that in the case of the Metropolitan Police hon. Members have a greater power of questioning than in the case of a provincial police force, but there are many curious developments in our Constitution upon which our liberties largely depend, and I do not think it would be a good thing to have absolute uniformity in this matter.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Is the Home Secretary aware that most of us are very happy to be denied the privilege of asking him questions about the police system as long as this avoids over-centralisation of the police forces of the country?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, and I am just as relieved not to be asked the Questions.

Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there is no anomaly at all? In the case of the Metropolitan Police, he is responsible for them and runs them and, therefore, is responsible to this House, although London pays the same amount towards the cost of the force as the provinces do for theirs; but, in the case of the provinces, he does not run them, though he has a considerable influence. Therefore, there is no anomaly. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the anomaly."] Then may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the logic of this argument would not be that the entire police forces of this country should become a national affair—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—a practice which would be foreign to British temperament and tradition?

Mr. Butler: I agree with the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I think it would be wrong to have the police forces centralised. What is troubling my hon. Friend and other Members of this House is that they have not exactly the same right of questioning for each particular force, and that, I think, is not so important as the major principle to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Lagden: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give


notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Rent Act (Prosecutions)

Mrs. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions have been brought by the police in the Metropolitan area since the passing of the Rent Act in connection with overcharging by landlords for furniture and fittings.

Mr. R. A. Butler: None, Sir.

Mrs. Jeger: May I ask the Home Secretary why not? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that overcharging for furniture and fittings is one of the most cruel methods of exploitation of desperate people who are looking for somewhere to live? As his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government made this illegal in the Rent Act, 1957, is it not the duty of the Home Secretary to ensure that the police enforce the law instead of bringing it further into disrepute?

Mr. Butler: Power to prosecute for offences under the Rent Act, 1957, is expressly conferred on local authorities. The police are not precluded from prosecuting, but it would be contrary to the usual practice for them to do so.

Election Deposits

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total amount of moneys forfeited in election deposits at the last General Election; and, on this basis, what amount would accrue to the Treasury if the General Election deposit of £150, first established in 1918, were increased to its present-day value of £325.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Fifteen thousand pounds. If the deposit had been £325, the total would have been £32,500.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Home Secretary aware that on several occasions I have asked him to bring the figure up to its present-day value and he has refused? Is the reason because he is afraid that, as the elections are now going, it will cost the Tory Central Office a lot of money when they lose the by-election and General Election deposits?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. Hitherto, it has been people in other parties who have had to pay these sums, and it is out of the quality of mercy that I am not raising the deposit.

N.A.T.O. Countries (Civil Defence)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what facilities exist in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the pooling of information regarding the civil defence measures of the member countries; and to what extent he has studied the evacuation plans and civil defence plans of the United States of America with a view to adopting them in this country.

Mr. R. A. Butler: The N.A.T.O. organisation includes a civil defence committee served by a full-time international staff, through which a full and regular exchange of civil defence information between member countries takes place. Through this organisation and through personal contacts and visits between those responsible for civil defence in the United States of America and the United Kingdom, information is available on the United States' plans; and account is taken, in the formulation of United Kingdom policy, of such plans in so far as they are applicable to the conditions in this country.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Home Secretary tell us whether the Government still adhere to their plan of evacuating 12 million people, and whether he thinks any of them can be safely sent into East Anglia? Will he consult the United States of America about taking a number of these people?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's observations is, "No, Sir." The evacuation plans of the Government form a separate Question which, no doubt, he will wish to put upon the Paper.

John Armstrong

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of the question of special public interest in the case of John Armstrong who was sentenced to death at Winchester Assizes in December, 1956,


whose sentence was subsequently commuted to life imprisonment and who is now a prisoner in Wormwood Scrubs prison, he will place a full transcript of the trial In the Library of the House of Commons.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I have already arranged for a transcript of this trial to be placed in the Library.

Dr. Johnson: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for this reply, may I ask him whether, in considering this case, he will consider the fact that the medical evidence in it is of an equivocal nature as between the two defendants at the trial, one of whom was acquitted at the time and has now confessed? Is he also aware that many people, myself included, have difficulty in comprehending how this charge was made one of murder in its original form? Is he further aware that, whilst appreciating the reasons for delaying consideration, I should be pleased to elaborate these remarks at an interview at his convenience?

Mr. Butler: Certainly it would be better if my hon. Friend would talk to me about this case. I cannot comment on the matter of the original charge, which was a question for the examining justices and not for me. In regard to any other matter dealing with the prosecution, it would be better if the hon. Member had a word with me.

Mr. S. Silverman: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what is the general practice of the Home Office now about the supply of transcripts of cases of this kind, or of criminal cases generally, to persons with a legitimate interest in the matter?

Mr. Butler: I should not like to give an answer on that without thought, but I will either frame an answer to a Question on the Paper put by the hon. Gentleman or I will write to him.

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the light of fresh evidence sent to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle, he will cause a review of the case of John Armstrong to be made.

Mr. R. A. Butler: My hon. Friend sent me a letter from Armstrong three days ago. I shall consider this letter and the statement which Mrs. Armstrong

made to the police on 22nd March and communicate with my hon. Friend when I have done so.

Dr. Johnson: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply?

Fire Service Exercise, Chigwell

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the principal lessons learnt by the Essex Auxiliary Fire Service and others who took part in Exercise Fire-raiser at Chigwell.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The exercise involved the use of five pumps and associated equipment, which were manned by thirty-three auxiliary firemen and fourteen auxiliary firewomen from the Essex and East Ham Fire Brigades. Its purpose was to provide further training for auxiliary personnel in the use of equipment.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Whilst thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, would he not agree it is most gratifying that, despite considerable propaganda against Civil Defence, so many people should voluntarily take part in these activities and exercises with so much enthusiasm, patriotism and public spirit?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I fully endorse the remarks of my hon. Friend. It is gratifying to find that these exercises are ably carried out and well attended by people who take part in them in their leisure time.

Interception of Communications (Privy Councillors' Report)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the instructions as to the interception of mail and telephone conversations which have been issued following upon the Privy Councillors' Report.

Mr. R. A. Butler: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House on 31st October last, the Government have accepted the report of the Committee of Privy Councillors, and the necessary steps have been taken to give effect to the recommendations on procedure summarised in paragraphs 159–163 of the report.

Mr. Grimond: May I ask the Home Secretary if any further consideration has been given to reservations made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), which I think have great support in this House, and whether he would tell us if it has been possible to incorporate any reservations about the use of this power in the case of crime in the instructions he has given?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. In general, we are following the recommendations of what I may call the majority of Privy Councillors. It does not mean that we would not pay attention to the considered views of the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) in our interpretation of the manner in which we carry out the powers, but the general rules we are following conform to the majority recommendations.

Nationality Department (Letters)

Sir I. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that registered letters containing important documents sent by members of the public to the Home Office Nationality Department are not acknowledged; that this practice causes anxiety and annoyance to the senders; and if he will arrange that in future such correspondence shall at least receive formal acknowledgment.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is causing the practice in this matter to be reviewed.

Crimes of Violence (Victims)

Mr. Moody: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will sympathetically consider the need for introducing legislation to provide proper compensation by the State for those who, in the execution of their duty, fall victims to criminal attack.

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration he has given to the state of the law regarding the remedies and rights to compensation of the victims of unlawful attacks upon their persons or property; and whether he will make a statement of the Government's proposals for improving the present situation.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Members to the Answer which I gave on 27th February to a Question by

the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen).

Mr. Moody: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is the third time this Question has come before the House, that he has added nothing to nothing and that the result is still nothing? Does this mean that this is the policy of the Government and that they intend to do nothing, or will the right hon. Gentleman, having expressed his sympathy on many occasions, go a step further and—[An HON. MEMBER: "Do nothing."]—give the House a definite indication as to the intentions of the Government?

Mr. Butler: The Government's intentions are strictly honourable. This is a somewhat complicated question upon which I could dilate at some length. For example, if there were to be a principle of retribution enforced by way of repayment by prisoners for damage done, the prison earnings scheme, which I have at present under review, would have to be considerably recast. Similarly, in general there would be a need to define an offender, which would be a difficult matter. There are some major schemes, notably some embraced by Miss Margery Fry, which we have also considered. They are all schemes which are good from the idealist point of view but they are hard to carry out. We are doing our best to study them but to say that this problem was easy to solve would be an overstatement.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: As the right hon. Gentleman has had the earnings system under review for more than a year, will he say what progress is being made.

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — BECHUANALAND

Primary Schools (Classes)

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is the average size of classes in the primary schools in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): The average number of pupils in classes in primary schools in the Bechuanaland Protectorate is thirty-six.

Mr. Mallalieu: is there any hope of any improvement in the very near future?

Mr. Alport: We are making some improvement and the expenditure on education in the Protectorate has increased substantially during the last four years. We hope in that way to be able to improve the facilities available for primary teaching in Bechuanaland.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is there not a very considerable backlog in education progress to make good in the Protectorate? Are the Government aware of the vital need, in view of the conditions in South Africa generally, to do something substantial in the Protectorate?

Mr. Alport: We are doing something substantial to improve facilities and, as I have said, the amount of money made available during the last four years has increased considerably and we propose to continue with that development.

Teachers

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what proportion of teachers leaving the Lobatsi Training College in the last two years has stayed to teach in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

Mr. Alport: In 1956, nineteen teachers passed out of the Teacher Training Centre, Lobatsi. Of these, sixteen are teaching in the Protectorate. In 1957, thirteen teachers passed. Of these, eight are teaching in the Protectorate and five, all of them women, are at present taking an additional year's course of training at the Homecraft Centre at Mochudi in the Protectorate.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Member satisfied that differences in pay as between the Protectorate and, for instance, Southern Rhodesia are not responsible for a considerable leakage?

Mr. Alport: Out of the teachers who have passed out of this training centre in the last two years, only one is teaching out of the Protectorate.

Development of Resources

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether Her Majesty's

Government will draw up a plan for the better use of the resources of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, indicating priorities, so that efforts may be concentrated upon the most desirable and attainable objectives.

Mr. Alport: The general lines of the development plan for the Bechuanaland Protectorate for the period 1955–1960 were set out in the White Paper (Cmd. 9580) of October, 1955. This plan was prepared after discussion with committees of Government officers and of leading European and African non-officials.
Priority is being given to the development of water supplies and to other measures which will assist the livestock industry, such as soil conservation, tsetse fly control and improving the veterinary services. Substantial funds are also being applied to geological surveys, roads, agriculture, and the medical and educational services.

Mr. Mallalieu: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that plan is very satisfactory, but can he say whether something is being done, because it is now a rather old plan?

Mr. Alport: This is a plan which runs until 1960, and the progress which we have made up to the present, with the assistance given from the United Kingdom Exchequer, is up to date and within the resources which are available in the Protectorate itself.

Mr. Page: In giving priority to cattle raising and matters connected with it, what is being done to see that the stability provided by the Lobatsi Abattoir is not being turned into a restriction of expansion of the cattle raising industry?

Mr. Alport: We realise the importance of the Lobatsi Abattoir to the cattle raising industry in the Protectorate, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are carefully considering the various views put to us by the recent mission from the Bechuanaland Protectorate to this country.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the Under-Secretary of State satisfied that he is getting sufficient European technical officers, or is his plan lagging because of the lack of qualified people to push ahead with this development?

Mr. Alport: There is no evidence that the plan is lagging. In fact, it is going ahead as fast as is possible within the resources which are available in the Protectorate itself.

Bushmen (Kidnapping)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what protection is afforded to bushmen in Bechuanaland who are kidnapped by residents in the Union of South Africa and South-West Africa as labourers and who cannot return to Bechuanaland because of the pass laws.

Mr. Alport: I have no information that bushmen in Bechuanaland Protectorate are being kidnapped by residents of the Union of South Africa or of South-West Africa. Everything practicable is done to prevent illegal entry into the Protectorate, and the recruitment of bushmen by illegal methods for work outside the Protectorate. Offences, when detected are punished.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Member aware that I have sent him evidence of this matter from a very reputable farmer? Will he investigate that evidence so that we can return to the matter later?

Mr. Alport: I have investigated the evidence which was sent to me by the hon. Member and which I have received from a number of other sources, but it is my information that there was some misunderstanding contained in the letter to which the hon. Member refers. We have said quite clearly that the recruitment of bushmen by illegal methods is something against which we would take the strongest action. We have recently established a new police post at Mamono, on the frontier between South-West Africa and the Protectorate, which we believe will assist in this object.

Administration (Africans)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what is his policy regarding the Africanisation of the administration in the Bechuanaland Protectorate; and what progress is being made in this matter.

Mr. Alport: It is the policy to employ more Africans in the administration of the Bechuanaland Protectorate as suitably qualified and trained Africans become

available. The junior service of the Protectorate is almost entirely composed of Africans; a start has been made with the appointment of Africans to the senior service.

Mr. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Bechuana leaders feel that more can be done in this matter and that he could be more sympathetic? Does he not agree that this development of Africanisation is basic to the health and future political stability of this society?

Mr. Alport: I agree that it is most important to continue the process of including an increasing number of qualified Africans in the Government Services in the Protectorate. That is our aim, although I emphasise that it is important, from the African's point of view as well as in the interests of the Protectorate, that these Africans should be fully qualified for the jobs to which they are appointed.

Veterinary School

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will state how many students there are at the Veterinary School in the Bechuanaland Protectorate; how many there are upon the staff; and what are their qualifications.

Mr. Alport: There are fourteen students at the Veterinary School in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. The total capacity of the School is twenty students. The staff of the School consists of one senior veterinary officer, who is a B.Sc. (Veterinary).

Mr. Johnson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bechuana are basically cattle people and that he must push on with this matter? Does he not agree that the Bechuana themselves feel that not sufficient is being done, particularly in appointing Africans to the staff?

Mr. Alport: We fully accept that the present state of staffing is insufficient to provide for outside demonstration and individual coaching of cattle breeders in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. We therefore intend to create a new post of veterinary instructor, and it is hoped to recruit for this post, if it is created, a highly qualified African with a degree and experience in animal husbandry.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that veterinary surgeons in Bechuanaland are not being used to prevent the export of cattle instead of looking after the cattle themselves?

Mr. Alport: Yes, I am fully satisfied about that.

African Advisory Council

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations when the African Advisory Council was instituted in Bechuanaland Protectorate; what is the present composition of the Joint Council; and what plans he has for this developing into a legislative council for the Protectorate.

Mr. Alport: The African Advisory Council of the Bechuanaland Protectorate was instituted in 1920. The Joint Advisory Council is composed of the Resident Commissioner who presides, eight Members of the European Advisory Council appointed by that Council, and eight Members of the African Advisory Council appointed by that Council. Officials attend the meetings as appropriate in relation to the agenda. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 20th March.

Mr. Johnson: What is to be the political future of this Protectorate? Would not the Minister agree that the more that African leaders—particularly Bamangwato leaders—are pulled in to govern their own affairs and settle their own business the healthier it will be, and the longer we keep them in what appears to be a political kindergarten the worse it will be for that society?

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member will be aware, as a result of a previous Answer I gave upon this subject, that we are in the process of extending the advisory council system to the tribal level. With his experience of this matter I am sure he will agree that it is best to start building upon a firm basis at a local level rather than try to start from any other level.

Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister not aware from his own talks and discussions with the Bechuana leaders that they do not share his view and that, at the same time as the local levels are being developed, they would like to have this

central administration built up, with their own people talking about their own affairs and making their own decisions as to what should be done in their own Territory?

Mr. Alport: I have had an opportunity of hearing the views of the leaders who were over here recently with regard to this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — BASUTOLAND

Hotels (Racial Discrimination)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will take steps to bring to an end all discrimination against Africans in the hotels of Basutoland.

Mr. Alport: Basutoland law does not impose any discrimination against Africans in hotels except in relation to the sale and consumption of liquor. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government to discrimination which may arise as a result of social convention is well known.

Mr. Brockway: In a British Protectorate, which is a British Territory, is there any justification whatever for a discrimination between people of one colour and people of another colour? Ought we not to give an example in this matter to the Union of South Africa?

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member is aware that the discrimination which relates to liquor is a result of an international agreement of very long standing, although it is true that in practice it has been amended in many respects over a period of time. The view has always been widely held that relationships between races within the Protectorate must be a matter of increasing understanding between individuals on the spot rather than any attempt to resort to legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA

British Manufacturers (Investment)

Mr. B. Harrison: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will publish a book giving details of the prospects for British manufacturers to invest in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr. Alport: Responsibility for the issue of a publication of this sort would


properly belong to the Australian authorities rather than to the Government of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the energetic efforts being made by both Commonwealth and State Governments in this field. Factual information about business conditions in Australia is, however, always available at the Board of Trade for British manufacturers who seek it.

Mr. Harrison: Does my hon. Friend not think it is completely wrong that the American Department of Commerce can issue a book about investing in Australia—and a very good book, too—while his Department is not prepared to do so? Will not he consider this matter again? Although we welcome dollar investment in Australia, we want as much sterling investment as possible to go there from this country.

Mr. Alport: I fully agree with my hon. Friend that we want United Kingdom investment in Australia. It is for this reason that we shall particularly welcome the representatives of the Queensland Promotion Delegation, which will shortly visit this country with the object of giving the point of view of their State with regard to future investment there. We have had similar opportunities of welcoming delegations from other States in the past. This appears to us to be the best way of ensuring that full knowledge of the facilities available exists in this country.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Agents-General of the individual States in Australia have adequate literature in their London offices which is always available should anyone so require it?

Mr. Alport: My hon. and gallant Friend is quite right. It would be difficult for us to judge between the rival merits of the investment facilities available in different parts of the Commonwealth. I would point out that, since the war, two-thirds of the investment in Australia has been made by the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — GHANA

Volta River Project

Mr. Willey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what further progress has been

made in the discussions regarding the financing of the Volta River project in Ghana.

Mr. Alport: The United Kingdom Government have not been concerned in any recent discussions on this project. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a statement issued by the Ghana Government about discussions they have recently had in Accra with representatives of Aluminium Ltd. of Canada.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Member for that reply. Will he continue to make offers with regard to this matter and give it every assistance? This project is of vital importance to the future of Ghana.

Mr. Alport: We have always made clear our continuing interest in this problem.

Mr. Woodburn: The British Aluminium Company was very much interested in this matter, and the Ghana Government sent representatives to visit its works in Falkirk, near my own constituency. Has that interest completely collapsed?

Mr. Alport: I would not like to go further at this moment than the statement which has already been made upon the matter, but recent negotiations have taken place direct between the Ghana Government and the Aluminium Company of Canada.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Racial Discrimination

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what representations he has received from the Prime Minister of India regarding a racial discrimination in Northern Rhodesia involving Indians enjoying diplomatic status.

Mr. Alport: The United Kingdom Government have received from the Government of India an aide-memoire on the subject of a recent incident in Southern Rhodesia, which is what the hon. Member presumably has in mind. As the House knows, it is not customary to give particulars of communications between the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth Governments. The hon. Member, however, will no doubt have


noted that the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland have publicly expressed to the Indian Government their deep regret for this incident.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is the Minister aware that the Federation is attempting to deal with this question by passing a special Immunities Act, and that that Act will impose upon diplomats the indignity of having to carry special chits? Is that Act not also a clear official recognition of the colour bar which exists in the Federation? Further, is it a fact that before the Act can be implemented there must be consultations about certain orders with his noble Friend the Secretary of State? What does he intend to do about it?

Mr. Alport: With regard to the hon. Member's first point, I am not prepared to comment upon the merits of legislation passed within the powers of the Federal Government, but I would draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that a very frank and forthright expression of regret was made by the Federal Government in connection with this incident. Perhaps the hon. Member would put down a Question upon his second point.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will not the Minister associate the British Government and this Parliament with the expression of disapproval of this action? I appreciate what he has said about legislation, but can he tell us whether any such legislation as that mentioned by my hon. Friend is contemplated? If so, will he convey to the Federation the fact that he would regard that as a breach of the spirit, if not the letter, of its Constitution?

Mr. Alport: This is a matter between the Federal Government and the Government of India. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the matter should be properly considered as one between those two Governments. As for the right hon. Member's second point, I have already told his hon. Friend that if he puts down a Question I shall do my best to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Comprehensive Schools

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education why he will not set up a special committee to study the development and

experience of comprehensive schools and make recommendations.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): Because the experience so far available of comprehensive schools is very limited and my right hon. Friend is in any case doubtful whether the establishment of a special committee would be the best procedure to adopt.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are now between forty and fifty of these pioneering schools, and that there is tremendous interest in them and also widespread controversy about them? Would it not be of value to set up a committee to investigate the facts relating to the progress and development of these schools, and to make an objective report which would give guidance to local education authorities who are interested in trying to develop comprehensive education?

Sir E. Boyle: It is important to remember that, of the forty-four comprehensive schools which exist, only eleven have been in existence for as long as five years. In any case, a variety of interesting experiments in secondary education are now being tried, and my right hon. Friend thinks that it would be premature to single out one form for study by a special committee.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the hon. Member aware that, to judge from its annual reports, his Ministry has so far paid very little attention to this very important educational development? If my hon. Friend's suggestion does not appeal to him, will he consider other ways in which his Ministry can inform itself and the public more fully on the matter?

Sir E. Boyle: Certainly we in the Ministry are very interested in all experiments concerned with trying out selective and non-selective streams of children within the same chool. I can assure the hon. Member of that.

School, Carlisle (Currock)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Education whether he has received a communication from the hon. Member for Carlisle in regard to the making of a grant towards the construction of a third classroom to St. Margaret Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School, Currock, Carlisle and whether, in view of the fact


that this classroom was included in the development plan of the local education authority, he will reconsider his decision in regard to the making of this grant.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. I have replied that my right hon. Friend can find no grounds for altering his decision.

Dr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite his explanation, feelings of dissatisfaction still exist amongst the managers of this school? They feel that they have been discriminated against as compared with other schools in Carlisle. Will he receive further representations if they are made?

Sir E. Boyle: The letter from my right hon. Friend explains the position in greater detail, but if my hon. Friend would like to see me I should naturally be pleased to hear his views.

Scientific and Technical Officers (Fees)

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Education if he will amend the rule in paragraph 5 of Circular No. 336 to enable Government scientific and technical officers who undertake up to four hours teaching a week in technical colleges but are unable to make up the time lost to retain the fees paid to them by the local education authority.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir. Where an officer undertakes teaching work in official time and does not make up the time lost, my right hon. Friend thinks it right and proper that his salary should be adjusted as described in this paragraph.

Mr. Short: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that this is a small but potentially very valuable source of higher technological teachers? Is he not aware that the technical colleges are finding great difficulties in getting staff, and does he not feel that this rather niggling regulation would deter some of these officers from offering their services? Should we not treat them as well as we treat ourselves in the matter of extra fees in ordinary working hours?

Sir E. Boyle: It is a long standing principle that a public servant should not be paid twice for work done in official time, and we should think hard before departing from that principle.

AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the hydrogen bombers cruising over our heads at the moment carry enough plutonium to poison the population of the British Isles 20 times over, he will issue instructions that no bombs containing plutonium are to be carried on patrol or training flights.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. If the hon. Member will look at my Answer last Tuesday to the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus), she will realise the inaccuracy of the information on which her Question is founded.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that I got my information from a recent lecture given by Dr. Mendelssohn, Reader in Physics at the University of Oxford, who went on to say that he was astonished that this information was not more widely known, as it was freely available in any scientific library, and deeply regretted that politicians were not more scientifically-minded? In view of that, will not the right hon. Gentleman take some more serious scientific advice?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. What I said before is true, and I repeat it. My responsibility is to be able to assure the House that the chances of danger in any particular form are negligible. This I have done before, and I now repeat.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister what is the factor in training of bomber crews which makes it necessary for bombers to carry the loading apparatus for the hydrogen bomb, seeing that the bomb is never armed in flight.

The Prime Minister: As I explained last week, it is undesirable for aircraft engaged in operational training or dispersal exercises to be separated from their armament.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not a fact that, on 18th March, the Prime Minister assured us that the bombers are never loaded or armed for the purpose in flight? Therefore, it clearly cannot be necessary for training purposes. Has not the time come to allay public anxiety on this matter, in view of the fact that it has been


announced on the one o'clock news today that a special meeting of the Supreme Soviet is being called this afternoon to announce the unilateral suspension of tests by them?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I am not responsible for the Praesidium of the Supreme Soviet Council.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give an assurance that no standing or routine patrol by hydrogen-bomb bombers will be instituted without first notifying Parliament.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have already stated that there is no standing or routine patrol.

Mrs. Castle: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has not answered my Question? If there is no standing routine patrol, what is to prevent him giving an assurance to the House that such a patrol will not be resumed without Parliament first being notified, which is what I asked him?

The Prime Minister: There is no standing or routine patrol, and no intention to start one. I could not give an assurance that in no circumstances, however terrible or dangerous, that might arise, I should not take some step that was thought right. That, of course, would be to take away from the full purpose of the deterrent, which is to deter.

SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Fell: asked the Prime Minister whether, after considering the advantages of holding an informal private no-agenda meeting of the heads of Government of Great Britain, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to prepare the way for the later Summit Conference, he will now make a statement of his proposals.

The Prime Minister: While I appreciate the proposal which my hon. Friend has in mind, I think the chances of a summit meeting achieving at least a limited measure of success are greater if the Western countries continue to urge the plan which they have been advocating.

Mr. Fell: That is all very well, but this is not my proposal; it was, in fact,

the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister not aware that many millions of people are growing increasingly worried about the extraordinary propaganda battle that has developed over the Summit Conference, that they have little faith either in the ability of Mr. Dulles to answer the propaganda effectively, or of our own Foreign Office to deal with this matter. [Interruption.] This is far too serious, I should have thought, for me to need propaganda help from the Opposition.
Is not the Prime Minister aware that our own Foreign Office is not in the position which the Prime Minister is in to be able to reach some agreement at the Summit Conference? Is he further aware that this is the most important matter we can possibly discuss at this time, and that, surely, serious consideration should be given to the possibility of holding a private, informal, no-agenda meeting, if necessary, of the Prime Minister himself and the leader of the Soviet Union, without America, if necessary, as was indeed suggested by Lord Beaverbrook in the Sunday Express?

The Prime Minister: All these considerations are important, and all these sources of points of view are respectable, but I am bound to say that I still think that a summit meeting to prepare for another summit meeting is not necessarily the best way of doing the preparatory work.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are disturbed and surprised by the statement made by the American Secretary of State that if we were to engage in a Summit Conference now it would involve recognising the permanent division of Germany, recognising East Germany, and making a number of other points which seem to us to be contrary to the facts as known to us on this side of the House? Can the right hon. Gentleman throw some light on this statement of Mr. Dulles?

The Prime Minister: No, not without notice, as I am afraid that I have not read it; nor am I, indeed, responsible for it. What I am trying to do, as I have told the House, is to work with the Western Powers in very close co-operation—and


this involves a great number of countries—in order, we hope, to get a solution of this problem. As I said the other day, I am not at all pessimistic about our being able to put forward a very good plan, which I hope the Soviet Government will accept.

Mr. Bevan: As it is the present plan of the Government for the Foreign Ministers, first of all, to meet for the purpose of probing the possibilities of items on the agenda having some chance of agreement, are not these statements by Mr. Dulles, who would be a party to the conference, evidence that, at least on that side, there is very little enthusiasm for this Summit Conference?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the position is very clear. What we are trying to do is to get general agreement between the Powers concerned as to what should be the next best step we should take, with a view to getting a solution of the preparatory work. As I said, I am not at all without hope that we shall achieve that purpose.

Mr. P. Williams: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable danger that the Summit Conference will be snowed under with paper missiles? Will he not also agree that the essential and urgent need for this Government and for the Prime Minister himself is to make a personal effort to break through this barrier of words that is passing backwards and forwards?

The Prime Minister: I must rest upon what I am able to do, but I am not conscious of having failed in any personal efforts.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that at last we seem to have in foreign affairs a bipartisan policy?

Mr. Fell: In view of the lack of information which I have been able to be given on this question, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter again in any appropriate way I can.

U.S.S.R. (HYDROGEN BOMB TESTS)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister what information he has concerning the number and size of atomic or hydrogen bomb tests carried out by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the last two years.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will understand that the public interest precludes me from revealing the information which we possess in any detail. I can, however, say that in the last few years the Russians have carried out over fifty tests.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the information he does have shows that there is any decrease either in the scope or the number of these tests recently?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir; rather the opposite.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that, in view of the large number of tests undertaken by the Soviet Union, many of us do not feel in the least surprised that they now advocate the unilateral suspension of tests?

The Prime Minister: I think that, if that should happen, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn a very fair deduction from the event.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is it not also clear that, if we had accepted the proposal to suspend the tests all round several months ago, a lot of these tests would never have taken place?

The Prime Minister: I recall that last year the right hon. Gentleman was in favour of our having and manufacturing the bomb, but not testing it. I am bound to say that the policy which he is now supporting of keeping the bomb would not have been very effective if I had followed his advice.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 31ST MARCH—We find it necessary to ask the House to consider a timetable Motion for the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill, which is now before the Scottish Standing Committee.
The terms of the Motion will appear on the Order Paper tomorrow morning.
It is hoped to dispose of this business in time to allow the Second Reading of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill to be moved at a reasonable hour.
TUESDAY, 1ST APRIL—A debate will take place on Malta, on a Government Motion.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Import Duties Antimony Order.
WEDNESDAY, 2ND APRIL—Third Reading of the Life Peerages Bill [Lords], which it is hoped to obtain by 7 o'clock.
Concluding stages of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill.
Consideration of the Motions to approve the Draft Police Pensions (No. 2) Regulations, and similar Regulations for Scotland.
THURSDAY, 3RD APRIL—It is proposed to meet at 11 a.m. and take Questions until 12 noon.
Adjournment for the Easter Recess until Tuesday, 15th April.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's decision to stifle discussion on the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill will be received with indignation, in Scotland, at any rate? Is he also aware that this is a Bill of great constitutional importance, involving financial provisions which are highly controversial?
Will he give the House an assurance that the Second Reading of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill will not be

taken at a late hour, as it is quite wrong that a Bill of this degree of importance should be brought on late in the evening?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman wreathed his indignation with the most delightful of smiles. We admire his synthetic enthusiasm. The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends know quite well that great efforts have been made to reach agreement on a timetable for this Bill not only by hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, but also by many of us who are interested in avoiding the use of the timetable procedure. But, this having been unsuccessful—we are still discussing Clause 2—I believe that the only manner in which proper consideration of this Bill can take place in the future is by means of our very lenient timetable.
It is our wish to take the Disabled Persons (Employment) Bill at a reasonable hour.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government intend to make a statement on the future of Cyprus before the Easter Recess, remembering that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House, in reply to a Question from me, that it was considered desirable to bring whatever negotiations might be going on to an end as soon as possible?

Mr. Butler: It is important that when we make a statement it shall be a valuable one. I cannot give any undertaking that various circumstances, including the international position, would make this possible by the date my hon. Friend desires.

Mr. Ross: Does the Leader of the House appreciate his own position following his announcement about Monday's business? Does he recollect that it is not so long ago since he sponsored a proposal whereby a considerable number of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies were excluded from the Scottish Standing Committee, and that this is the first Bill of major importance to be dealt with by that streamlined Committee?
How can the right hon. Gentleman stand at that Dispatch Box without being aware of what has happened in that Committee? There is no justification for this proposal in relation either to the importance of the Bill or what has happened in


that Committee. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if there has been any holdup it is due to the sheer incompetence of the Scottish Office?

Mr. Butler: I do not accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's statement.
I am aware that this is the first Bill taken by the Scottish Standing Committee as constituted under the revised Standing Order. That makes it all the more regrettable that we have had to resort to a timetable. We would rather that saner counsels had prevailed, and that we had been able to reach agreement on a timetable which was manifestly quite fair and gave an adequate opportunity to discuss the Bill.

Mr. Teeling: As, in the last debate on Malta, the Motion was to "take note", and there was no Division, and as the Opposition have stated that this is a nonparty issue, may we be assured that we shall be allowed a free vote, on both sides of the House, in the debate on Tuesday?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. There will be a Motion, and we shall make that a Government Motion.

Mr. Hoy: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that only this morning, in the Scottish Standing Committee, the Joint Under-Secretary of State asked the Committee to meet on Wednesdays and that that met with unanimous approval? In those circumstances, we regard it as a great betrayal of our interests that his announcement about a timetable Motion should be made a few hours later?

Mr. Butler: We regret very much that we have had to put a timetable on this Bill. I always prefer to see an agreed timetable, if possible.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House can debate the merits or demerits of the timetable Motion on Monday.

Mr. Darling: Will the Leader of the House say what has happened to the Slaughterhouses Bill?

Mr. Butler: It has passed through the Standing Committee and its later stages will, in due course, be taken on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Peyton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has given further consideration to the constructive and useful suggestion made last week by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), that some of the time taken in debating legislation could be devoted to more important subjects on the Order Paper—for instance, the Motion in my name which deals with the problems of the shipping industry, and which should be given time for discussion?

[That this House, while recognising the value of the recent increase in the investment allowance given by Her Majesty's Government to the United Kingdom shipping industry, nevertheless records its extreme concern at the difficulties caused to the industry by the virtual freedom from taxation enjoyed by ships flying certain flags of convenience, and, in view of the unique position of British shipping as the lifeline of an island nation, calls for further measures to strengthen its competitive power.]

Mr. Butler: This, as I said last week, is a busy time of the year for legislation. But I agree with my hon. Friend that the more occasions we can have for general discussion, the better.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government have only a minority representation of Members from Scotland and that his timetable Motion is a case of the minority guillotining the majority? Is the right hon. Gentleman suffering from the delusion that his party won the Kelvingrove by-election, instead of losing it?

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last full statement that we had on Cyprus was given before the last Recess, and that we have had only an interim statement since? Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House a little more information? We have been reasonable and forbearing up to now, but is it not over-stepping the bounds to ask for reasonable tolerance and more time for negotiation, there having been no statement?

Mr. Butler: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement on 18th February. It is true to say that hon. Members on all sides of the House have been most patient in


relation to this very intractable question, but I cannot carry it further this afternoon.

Mr. Callaghan: This is the answer that the Leader of the House has given now on two or three occasions when he has been asked about it at Question Time. Will he please take note of the growing impatience on both sides of the House at the failure of the Government to make their position clear on this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, on both sides of the House. We have already had one question from the Government benches this afternoon.
May I put it to the Leader of the House that, in the interests of the people of Cyprus, as well as of the people of Britain, the time is coming when the Government should make a full and considered statement about their own position in relation to a situation in which there are emergency regulations operating in the island, in which there is no constitutional Government, and in which there are hundreds of men and women imprisoned without trial?
Ought not the House of Commons to be interested when such a situation persists? Does not the duty fall upon the Government to make their position clear at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Butler: I will note the observations of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members who have put forward their views on this important matter.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS ON GOING INTO COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

Chief Constables (Powers)

Mr. Lagden: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the powers of chief constables, and move a Resolution.

Commonwealth Countries (Financial and Economic Co-operation)

Mr. B. Harrison: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the desirability of creating machinery for closer co-operation in financial and economic affairs between Commonwealth countries, and move a Resolution.

Health Services (Work Study)

Mr. Partridge: I beg to give notice that on going into Committee of Supply on the Civil Estimates, I shall call attention to the need for work study in the health services, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — THE WEST INDIESM (GIFT OF MACE)

Resolution reported,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a Mace to the House of Representatives of the West Indies, and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.

Resolution agreed to.

Address to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(BOUNDARY COMMISSIONS' REPORTS.)

3.44 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I beg to move, in line 25, to leave out "not".

The Chairman: The first Amendment on the Notice Paper, in page 2, line 25, to leave out subsection (2), is not selected. The next two, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), that which he has moved and the next Amendment, in page 2, line 26, to leave out from "two" to the end of the subsection and to insert:
and in giving effect to the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act to take account, so far as they reasonably can, of the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies and of any local ties which would be broken by such alterations; and rule 5 of those rules shall be amended accordingly",
may be taken together. We could also include the one following it, in page 2, line 30, to leave out from "constituencies" to "and" in line 31, and the last Amendment but one to the Schedule, in page 5, line 20, at the end to insert:
2. Rule 5 in the second Schedule to the principal Act shall be amended by the addition at the end of the rule of the following

words "or to avoid inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies, including any local ties which would be broken by such alterations".

Mr. Mitchison: The subsection which we propose to amend would introduce a new factor for the consideration of the Boundary Commission, that is, the inconveniences that are attendant upon alteration of constituencies and the breaking of local ties as the result of such alteration. As we said on the Second Reading, we welcome the recognition of that factor in the rules. Its introduction is one of the things that the Boundary Commission must take into account.
The form in which it is introduced in the subsection seems somewhat unfortunate. It was described by the Leader of the House as a presumption against making changes unless there is a very strong case for them. I doubt whether it goes quite as far as that. What is proposed is that the Boundary Commission is not to be bound to give full effect in all circumstances to the rules that are already in the Second Schedule, but is to take account so far as it can of the new factor, except as regards alterations made to boundaries. These are the alterations which occur in the rule four mentioned in the subsection. That is extremely difficult to follow, and I must for a moment trouble the Committee with a reference to the rules.
They begin with three unqualified rules. One is about the number of constituencies; another is about single-Member constituencies, and the third is a peculiar rule about the City of London. It is very hard to see what effect this new factor will have on the strict carrying out of those rules.
We then come to Rule 4, the one to which the new factor is not to have the same application. It begins by saying:
So far as practicable, having regard to the first three rules",
and it goes on to deal with the question of boundaries. In Rule 5, we get to the question of the electoral quota. Here again the Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule in certain circumstances.
If, on top of this "so far as practicable" and "departure from the strict application" and all the rest of it, we add a further exception in the form in


which it appears in subsection (2), we have left the matters that the Boundary Commission has to take into consideration exceedingly confused. We have alighted on the one rule to which it ought to have some particular application, that is, the boundary rule, as the one to which it is not to have any particular application.
What is left? What are the rules to which it has to have application? Three rules, to which I should have thought it could hardly apply at all. The one rule to which it really ought to apply is the one about the size, not of the electoral quota, since this rule seems clear enough already. We might try to think out what we are doing in relation to it, and not seek to apply this sort of thing to the question of single-Member constituencies, and so on, to which it has no application at all, but to apply it in relation to the electoral quota.
The proposal in the Amendment is to change the application of the rule and to make the subsection run like this, taking the two Amendments together:
It shall be the duty of a Boundary Commission, in discharging their functions under the said Section two"—
that is, the general Section—
and in giving effect to the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act, to take account, so far as they reasonably can"—
of the new factor—
and Rule 5 of those rules shall be amended accordingly.
That seems to me to put this new factor in its proper place, and not to introduce the quite unnecessary confusion that appears to arise from the present form of words in the subsection.
What I have said relates to the first two Amendments. The third Amendment is, broadly speaking, aimed towards the same sort of point, but does not go quite so far. Assuming that, for some reason or another—I hope, a good one—the general wording of the subsection is preferred to my suggestion; that the Government prefer, at any rate, as I see it, to increase the obscurity of the rules by adding this new factor in this curious way, I still see no reason for the exception made in relation to the fourth rule, which is the boundary rule.
If this factor is to be taken into account and allowed to weigh against the strict application of the rules, why should the

rule about boundaries be specifically excepted? I quite fail to see any reason for that, and I could not collect one from the Second Reading debate. I suggest, therefore, that if we cannot have the wording that I prefer, we might, at least, leave out the words in line 30
… other than alterations made for the purposes of rule 4 of those rules …
Perhaps I may conclude by making two observations. The first is to repeat, lest there be any uncertainty about it, that we, on this side, welcome the introduction of this new factor. We think that it is quite right that it should form part of the rules. All we are anxious about is that its effect should be clearly stated. We believe that it is stated more clearly by putting it into Rule 5, where it belongs, and by not making this exception in favour of Rule 4. We think that that will give it not only a fuller, but a clearer effect.
If I have to repeat my second observation in the course of our debates today, I shall do so only because I think that we have to keep it constantly before us. It is that Clause 1 does have the effect of making an alteration in the position of the Boundary Commission. We are now dealing with rules that are the guide—and, as I see it, the only guide—for a Commission with a judicial head and two other official members. It is, therefore, extraordinarily necessary that the rules we have to consider should be recognised as what they are—the guide for that Commission—and should be as clear as we can make them.
I have referred to what I consider to be the lack of clarity in the form proposed in the Bill. That need for clarity is the more apparent when we reflect on what, at any rate, has been previous experience—and I would not differ too much from it. On the last occasion, we found that the Home Secretary had not thought it proper to interfere at all with the reports made by the Commission. I fully appreciate the difficulty of any Home Secretary in seeking to interfere with those reports, or to make recommendations to vary them in some way or other; that, although he has a power to do so under the Act, he runs into the difficulty, the inevitable difficulty, of some confusion between his political and party position and his duty to see that the rules are carried out effectively. For that last


reason, again, I say that it is most important that we should get these rules clearer.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to reply to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) straight away, particularly as he has said that he is in agreement with the main purpose of Clause 2 (2), and that his difficulty arises from its drafting and not from any difference of view, in substance, as to what degree of flexibility the subsection is proposed to achieve.
I would agree with him, too, that it is very desirable that these rules should be as clear as possible. I must confess that from the very beginning, when they were first formulated, the rules were not of obvious clarity on a first perusal. I have had, perhaps, more occasions to consider them than has the hon. and learned Gentleman, and though I do not think that they in any sense lack clarity as they stand now, I must admit that they may not be too easy, as I have said, to comprehend on a first reading.
Clause 2 (2), as it stands, quite clearly admits of the departure to a greater degree from the strictness of the rules as they now stand, and the hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously correct in saying that its impact does not really arise in relation to the first three rules, but primarily in relation to Rule 4. By this Clause, it will be possible to avoid the kind of thing to which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) drew attention, namely, the transfer of about 17,000 electors from one part of Southampton to another to secure an adjustment of about 1,000 in the electorate of each constituency within Southampton. I am sure we would all think that that kind of change was really not very desirable.
The matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering really relates to the reference in line 30 to Rule 4:
… other than alterations made for the purposes of rule 4 of those rules …
The reason for the use of those words is this. We may get the case in which borough boundaries are extended, or

boundaries are altered, with the result that the boundaries of the parliamentary constituency do not coincide with those of the local government area. It is, in our view, desirable that where that sort of change occurs, effect should be given to Rule 4 by extending the parliamentary boundary. The obvious case is the extension of a borough boundary. The part to which the extension applies then falls within the borough for all local government purposes.
4.0 p.m.
I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has expressed a somewhat different view, but we believe that there is great value in trying to preserve the same boundaries for local government areas and parliamentary constituencies. That is why, in line 30, we have deliberately excepted from Clause 2 (2), and from the power of the Boundary Commission to take account of inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies, alterations made for the purpose of Rule 4 of the rules, that is to say, alterations made for the purposes of securing coincidence between local authority boundaries and Parliamentary constituency boundaries. We feel that that is something which should, if possible, be achieved.
Of course, there will remain under the rule as it stands, when the subsection is passed and becomes part of the Statute Law, a certain measure of flexibility, because Rule 4 is governed by the words "so far as is practicable". But, in relation to that particular aspect, we are not enlarging the degree of flexibility by Clause 2 (2). I hope that I have made that clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I know his view on local authority boundaries. I myself feel that the Committee could probably discuss that more usefully when we come to some of the later Amendments. I hope that the Committee will agree not to embark on a discussion of that aspect, which is an important one, at the present time.
I hope that I have made clear to the hon. and learned Gentleman the reason for the reference to Rule 4 in the subsection and the reason, in our view, that it should remain.

Mr. Arthur Skeffington: We are grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General for what he has said. May we


take it that the kind of alterations which took place in London on the last occasion will not recur? At that time, there were, I think, alterations to 16 constituencies in order to create one new one, and, in the end, Hammersmith Town Hall was placed in the Fulham Parliamentary constituency. May we take it that, as a result of the Clause we are discussing, plus the retention of Rule 4, that kind of thing will be almost impossible? An assurance from the Attorney-General would be of help.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that I could say it would be impossible, because one cannot say what the results of a consideration of particular facts in particular localities may be. But I can say that it is our intention—I think the Clause adequately provides for it—to give the Boundary Commission power to depart from strict conformity with the rules so as to avoid the inconveniences which arise from the rupture of local ties or associations which may have considerable importance.

Mr. Mitchison: I must say that I cannot find that answer satisfactory. The subsection says that the Boundary Commission is not bound to give full effect to the rules. It refers to the application of what I continue to call the new factor to all cases except Rule 4 cases.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchison: If I am wrong, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make clear what he means. Let me restate it and see whether it appeals to him more in this form. It then applies the new factor as something reasonably to be taken into account in all cases. When one looks at the new factor, it is certain things attendant on alterations of constituencies. The only alterations of constituencies which are not to be considered for those purposes are alterations made by reason of Rule 4.

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated dissent.

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. and learned Gentleman still shakes his head. I shall give way in a moment. I hope he will realise that I am not, if I may say so, completely half-witted. If I find this

difficulty in what he meant just now, and in what is meant by what is on the Notice Paper, it is possible that others may find a similar difficulty.
The Attorney-General will agree that Rule 4 is treated in an exceptional way. He will agree, because he said so, that this has no real application to the first three rules. There remain Rules 5 and 6. He objects to it being put into Rule 5, and nobody has suggested that it has much to do with Rule 6. What is the point of putting in a particular matter which is intended to refer to Rule 5, which treats Rule 4 as exceptional, and which does not apply to the other rules anywhere than in the place to which it does apply?

The Attorney-General: I realise quite well that these rules are difficult to comprehend, on first consideration, and I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not think that I am seeking to be discourteous when I say that the short answer to his question is that he is, I think, paraphrasing incorrectly—unintentionally, I know—what is in the subsection. He says again and again that this gives a degree of flexibility in relation to all rules other than Rule 4. That is not what the Clause provides. It provides for flexibility in relation to Rule 4 and in relation to the very cases about which I was asked just now. The words are:
they shall take account, so far as they reasonably can, of the inconveniences attendant on alterations of constituencies"—
that gives a slight presumption against alterations—
other than alterations made for the purposes of rule 4 of those rules
that is to say, if I may paraphrase, correctly, I think, other than alterations made to existing boundaries of parliamentary constituencies to secure conformity with Rule 4, that is, to secure, where borough boundaries have been altered, that the Parliamentary boundaries are extended to coincide with those.
With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, the difficulty which he has seen arises, I think, from his taking the view that this Clause contains an exclusive reference to Rule 4, when it does not. It refers to all rules including Rule 4, except in this very limited instance where we want to preserve the


power to extend a parliamentary constituency boundary to coincide with an extended borough boundary. I cannot go further than that in trying to make it clear.

Mr. Mitchison: I now understand what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind, but I still find it exceedingly obscure and I cannot welcome a subsection which applies a new factor to rules generally when, so far as I can see, it can apply only to a very limited class of case. But this is, after all, a point of intention, and I doubt whether there is sufficient difference between the intention of the Attorney-General and the Government and our intention to justify pressing the point too far.
There is, I think, another slight difference. We would have preferred a more nearly equal place to be given to the new factor than is given in the wording of the subsection, but, in view of what has been said and the explanation given as to the limited character of the reference to Rule 4, we need not press it.

The Attorney-General: I will, of course, consider all that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about it. There is really no difference apparent in the Committee as to the intent. It is merely a matter of language. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the desirability of making the language as clear and precise as possible. I rose again to say that I shall give further consideration to it and see whether we can secure greater clarity and precision in order to achieve the common objective. But it is not easy, and we may not be able to do it.

Mr. Mitchison: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He used the phrase just now, "a slight presumption". That is the way I would read the subsection, and I hope that I may be allowed, without disrespect, to say that the phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, on Second Reading, seemed to me to go a little too far. He said that there is a presumption against making changes unless there is a very strong case for them. Those were a few words spoken in the course of a long, eloquent and useful speech.
I hope that nothing will be done to enlarge the effect which the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated today. We welcome this new factor. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end to add:
(3) For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding any previous practice, it is hereby declared that nothing in the said rules enjoins or justifies any difference between the application of sub-paragraph (a) (i) of paragraph (1) of rule 4 of those rules to the inclusion of a county or any part thereof in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county and the application of that sub-paragraph to the inclusion of a county or any part thereof in a constituency which includes the whole or part of a county borough or metropolitan borough.
This is one of four Amendments on the Notice Paper intended to call attention to the fact that certain practices which have been followed by the Boundary Commissions in the past are not justified by any of the rules. I repeat what I said just now—that if a judicial and official Commission is sitting with, in practice, something very like the last word in these matters, and if it is governed by a set of statutory rules, it is highly undesirable that matters not in those rules should be introduced, because that means, in effect, handing over to the Commission a discretion which the Act does not justify and which, if it were to be handed over to the Commission, ought to be fully debated and considered in the House. I therefore see no reason why the Commission should ever depart from the rules.
I recognise, of course, as anyone must recognise in dealing with these rules, that the subject matter with which the Commission has to deal is of such a character that there are bound to be conflicts between the rules and bound to be cases where one rule must be given more weight than another. It is on that account that the rules were put in a certain order. A preference was given to the first three, as I see it the second place was given to the fourth, the third place to the fifth and the fourth place to the sixth. The order in which the rules occur is of significance when we look at the character of the calculations involved.
One part of Rule 1 deals with the question of the respect to be paid to the boundaries of counties and county boroughs.


All that the Amendment seeks to do is not that this importance or some other importance should be given to county boundaries or county borough boundaries, but simply, as is the case with the rules, to make no distinction between county boundaries and county borough boundaries.
Lest I should be accused of summarising incorrectly, let me read Rule 4 (1, a, i):
no county or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other county or the whole or part of a county borough or metropolitan borough;
4.15 p.m.
If it were absolute, this would prohibit the Commission from ever crossing any county or county borough boundaries, but it is not absolute; it is absolute only as far as is practicable, having regard to the preceding rules. The practical difficulty is that in its last Report the Commission paid a religious regard to county boundaries and crossed them only in cases such as Rutland, where the county area is too small to make a complete constituency—it had to cross a neighbouring county for that purpose—or in cases where there was a constituency and, if I may say so, obviously had to be a constituency which involved the crossing of a county boundary.
This was not the case with county borough boundaries. The Commission, instead of making five or six constituencies from a city, did not hesitate to make five-and-a-half, adding half a constituency from the county outside. The result was to bring in housing estates which lay outside the county borough boundary altogether and to tack them on to a county borough.
I am not for the moment on the question of how far we ought to do that. All I am saying is that if the Commission does it in the case of county boroughs, and if it sticks to the rules, there is no reason why it should not do exactly the same with counties. If it finds that in a part of a county there is a market town which serves an area largely in a neighbouring county, or something like that, it should hesitate no more and no less to cross a county boundary than it should hesitate when it is dealing with a borough boundary.
I do not suppose that it will be disputed for a minute that this has been the practice of the Boundary Commission. I do not want to go into a long discourse to prove it. The cases are mentioned at the beginning of paragraph 15 of the Report:
We have recommended a continuance, for parliamentary purposes, of the union of the Administrative Counties of Rutland and the Parts of Kesteven; the Administrative Counties of Northamptonshire and the Soke of Peterborough and the Administrative Counties of East and West Suffolk.
Coming to the borough constituencies, we read:
we have recommended the intersection of the boundaries of 28 boroughs and I urban district:
The urban district does not matter for this purpose. Not all of these boroughs will necessarily be county boroughs but most of them will. If we go through the constituencies in detail there is not the least doubt about it.
It may be said that there is this difference: outside a county borough there are areas which in due course will be absorbed into the county borough. If that is a matter which ought to be taken into account it must be stated in the rules. We are now to have a judicial chairman, and I hope and believe that he will pay attention to the rules and nothing but the rules and will not rely on Parliament making the changes, which, in fact, Parliament refused to make on the last occasion, in the recommendations of the Commission.
We must remember that a widespread review of local boundaries, including county and county borough boundaries, will proceed in the next few years under the Local Government Act, assuming that right hon. Gentlemen opposite remain in office long enough to get the Local Government Bill on to the Statute Book.
There is no one who does not accept the fact that a review of that sort is required, a review which, in all parts of the country, will enable the Local Government Commission to look at both county and county borough boundaries, and in all parts of the country which contain a very large part of the total population will not only enable the Commission to do that but will enable new forms of local government to be started.
The continuous county contemplated by the Local Government Bill is a new and strange object. It may have its uses, but I do not want the boundaries of that legislative experiment to be treated any differently from, or with any less or more respect than the other boundaries referred to in this rule.
The Amendment is purely declaratory but it is declaratory of something which undoubtedly is in the rules and equally without doubt has not been followed by the Boundary Commission in the past.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) began by making some references to the statutory provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949. I should like to follow his example. I do not think that I part company with him in any real degree in what he said, though I differ with him in one respect. When one considers the provisions of paragraph 4 of the Schedule, there is nothing as a matter of construction of the Statute to lead to the view that paragraph 4 (1, a, i) is to take preference over paragraph 4 (1, a, ii) or paragraph 4 (1, a, iii) or paragraph 4 (1, a, iv) as a matter of legal construction, but, of course, as a matter of practical importance I am sure that the hon. and learned Member would agree that it would be less objectionable to depart from a county district boundary than it would be to depart from or alter or go across a county boundary or a county borough boundary.
I can agree with the hon. and learned Member that there is no distinction drawn in paragraph 4 (1, a) between a county being included in the whole or part of any other county and a county being included in the whole or part of a county borough or a metropolitan borough. They are dealt with in the same subsection of the same paragraph. No distinction is drawn there, but, as the hon. and learned Member said, those provisions are subject to the stipulation that they ought to be adhered to so far as is practicable. That is in the 1949 Act, and if the Bill reaches the Statute Book that must be read in the light of Clause 2 (2).
Where I must part company with the hon. and learned Member is on the facts. It is not right to say that the Boundary

Commissions can be assumed to have read this statutory provision wrongly, having regard to the discretion given to them. They are to have regard to these rules so far as practicable, and I want to deal with that point. The hon. and learned Member concluded by saying that this rule had not been followed by the Commissions. I do not think that there are grounds for saying that and, to go back to the subject matter of the Amendment, I do not think that there is any room for doubt about the meaning of the provision. In my view, therefore, the Amendment is quite unnecessary for the removal of doubt. One does not want to include in a statute provision for the removal of doubt when there is no doubt.
The hon. and learned Member's argument is based on the submission that the Boundary Commission for England has departed from that rule in more cases in relation to county boroughs than it has in relation to counties. I agree that it has, and I submit that it was right to do so having regard to the circumstances which it had to consider. One starts with the desire to preserve all local government boundaries and to avoid having Parliamentary constituencies cutting across those boundaries, but it is not the case, as the hon. and learned Member conceded, that the Boundary Commission has regarded county boundaries as entirely sacrosanct.
There is the case of the Sudbury and Woodbridge Division, which takes in part of East and West Suffolk. There is the administrative county of Rutland, which takes in part of Kesteven, and there is, perhaps, the borderline case of Northamptonshire and the Soke of Peterborough. I say that that is a borderline case because it is not beyond dispute that the Soke of Peterborough does not form part of the county of Northampton.

Mr. Ede: It is a separate administrative county.

The Attorney-General: Certainly, for many purposes, but, I think, not for all. I am sure that I can have the agreement of the right hon. Gentleman that it is a constituency which is very well represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, whether it is part of the Soke of Peterborough or part of the County of Northampton that he represents.

Mr. Mitchison: Those are the three examples which I quoted. The point is that they exist already and the Boundary Commission did not interfere with them, but it created no new examples, though it made many in connection with county boroughs.

The Attorney-General: I was coming to deal with that. I apprehend that the reason why the Commission created no new examples was that there was no occasion to do so. The objective must be to preserve these boundaries and make them coincide with Parliamentary boundaries, but when one comes to the boroughs there is a very real difficulty and a position quite distinct from that of counties as a whole.
The real problem arises when there are boroughs which have electors in excess of the electoral quota. There are three possible methods of treating these boroughs. The first is to give them more seats. That would result in a large number of cases in which the seat in such a borough would represent considerably less than the electoral quota. That would be bound to mean that there would be fewer seats available for the county areas, and, consequently, county constituencies would be more oversized.
That is one way in which the matter could be dealt with, but I have not heard it suggested by anyone that county constituencies which have long travelling distances should be treated unfavourably compared with boroughs. That would be the result if a borough were divided into two seats with the electorate for each being far below the electoral quota. That is a method which I am sure the Committee would think would be wrong for the Boundary Commission to adopt.
The second method would be to let those borough constituencies remain with their electorates higher, and maybe considerably higher, than the electoral quota. The Boundary Commission's Report for 1947 took that course and Parliament, at the behest of a Socialist Government, then over-rode the Commission's recommendation and provided for 17 more constituencies. Therefore, that recommendation on the part of the Commission did not take effect. But that was a course of treatment of this problem which arises not in relation to counties, but in relation to boroughs.

4.30 p.m.
The third possible way of dealing with it is to reduce the electorate of a borough by including some of its electorate in a neighbouring county seat or to take from a county constituency and include in a borough seat, where we are dividing the borough into, say, two seats, a sufficient proportion of the county electorate to raise the electorate within one of those borough seats to a figure near the electoral quota. That was the method broadly adopted by the Boundary Commission in its last Report and which has been the subject of considerable criticism and led to the introduction of Clause 2 (2), which has been welcomed on both sides of the Committee.
It is not the case that there is any ground, as far as I can see, for saying that the Boundary Commission gave an interpretation different from that which the hon. and learned Gentleman has given and with which I agree, but in the exercise of the discretion that it is given under these rules it thought it right, having regard to the problem which arises in relation to boroughs, to depart from that part of Rule 4 (1, a).
It is significant that every time this House has drafted rules we have had a conflict between local associations and the desire for securing a higher degree of mathematical accuracy. The 1944 Act, which was passed after the Speaker's Conference, got into difficulties, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will remember, because of the rule that constituencies should conform to the electoral quota, with a margin of 25 per cent. up and 25 per cent. down.
That provision led to such extraordinary results that the right hon. Gentleman rightly introduced a Bill in 1946 to give the Boundary Commission a greater degree of flexibility. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The Third Schedule had been enacted … too closely to a merely mathematical formula. Now representation in this House is something more than a matter of mere mathematics. This House, except for the University Members, is based on a territorial organisation and many of us are very proud to represent communities that are integral, human entities which have both a history and a very lively sense of corporate feeling. This purely mathematical formula, so harsh and unyielding in its effect, meant that in certain cases wards were lopped off a borough and put with an adjoining county division. I have been astonished, as I moved


about the country during the last two or three months, at the number of places which will be under-represented if they get only one Member which have said that they prefer to be slightly under-represented, and to have one Member, and remain a unity, rather than have a few of their wards lopped off and put in with some other groups of people with whom they have no very great community of interest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 1559.]
If I may respectfully say so to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that what he said was absolutely accurate and is as well founded today as it was then.

Mr. Ede: There is no need to say "respectfully".

The Attorney-General: There may be no need to say it, but I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would like it.

Mr. Ede: No.

The Attorney-General: I shall not withdraw the word "respectfully", but leave it where it stands.
Throughout the country there exists a view that communities should be preserved. The provisions in Clause 2 (2) of the Bill will enable more effect to be given to that view. That means, to my mind, that the likelihood of having a repetition of those discrepancies as a result of a future review will be diminished.
I hope I have not taken too long in dealing with the Amendment. In conclusion, I come back to this point. One cannot argue, judging from the Commission's treatment of the problem relating to boroughs with an electorate in excess of the quota, that the Commission has misinterpreted the very clear and precise provisions of Rule 4 (1, a.) I do not think that there is any ground for saying that or that there is any doubt about the meaning of that provision. This is one of the occasions on which I have been able to entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman's view of the law.
In those circumstances, I must advise the Committee that, instead of removing doubt, the inclusion of this provision might conceivably add to doubt about the meaning of the original provision.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: We on this side agree with what the Attorney-General has said. There is something to be said for maintaining the entity of

boroughs, for the reasons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given. But this does not get over one of the great problems, namely, the under-representation of England. This is a point which must be looked at.

The Attorney-General: We shall certainly have to debate that point on a later Amendment. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here, but I said that I would not deal with that matter in detail, because it does arise later. It would be more convenient to discuss it then.

Mr. Hobson: Mr. Hobson indicated assent.

Mr. Mitchison: This is a narrow but, I think, important point.
Both the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have no doubt that this rule treats borough boundaries and county boundaries in the same way. In both cases it is not an absolute treatment, but is subject to qualifications. I agree that the qualifications may apply more in one case than in another. But no change whatever was made to cross a county boundary. The only cases in which it was crossed or in which more than one county was included in a given area were where that was the position before the Commission reported. The Commission merely continued what existed already. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the opinion that it gave a different treatment to county borough boundaries and to county boundaries was widespread.
The complaints of people who found that part of an adjacent housing estate in the county had been added to their nice county borough constituency were numerous. They took the view—and, in spite of what the Attorney-General said, I share it—that they regarded these two types of boundary differently. I agree that it is to some extent a matter of doubt whether the different treatment that the Commission gave arose from a different view of the law affecting the matter or from a differing effect in the qualifying circumstances. The latter is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. But, on his own showing, the only difference between us is that he says there is no doubt, and I feel that there is doubt. I do not put it merely on my own feeling. I am sure that there has been a great deal of doubt as to whether the boundaries have been treated in the same way.
Let us have no misunderstanding about it. I am not saying anything whatever about the proper treatment or the effect of these qualifications. All I am saying is that there is no distinction to be drawn between the one type of boundary and the other. It may well be that the qualifications will apply differently. That is a matter to be decided in each case, and there will be differences between one county borough and another county borough, and between one county and another county. I am certain that there has been doubt about the treatment of these two types of boundary.
The Amendment could do no conceivable harm and is simply to avoid doubt. It should be included for that purpose, and for that reason I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Mr. Ede: I must apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for not being present when he moved the Amendment.
I stand by every word which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General quoted. The first problem is that no scheme can be devised by which the Boundary Commissioners will please everybody. Let us make a start by making that open confession. As one who had three shots at trying to do it, I am willing to admit that for a start. At the time I made the speech which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, I did not know that when the first review took place my seat would be one which would be involved in just that controversy.
The trouble is that the Boundary Commissioners do not give reasons for their decisions. If they did, it might be possible to understand their decisions. There was undoubtedly a feeling, after the review which took place when Lord Tenby was Home Secretary, that in too many cases what my hon. and learned Friend described took place.
What happened in my constituency is a good example. Four wards were lopped off the Borough of South Shields for Parliamentary representation and put in with the Borough of Jarrow. That had an astounding effect in the County Borough of South Shields. All political parties and all social organisations in the borough said, "We want to remain a borough and to have one Member of Parliament and not one and a bit and

then find, on issue in which we are in conflict as a borough with our neighbours on something which comes before Parliament, that we shall possibly not count in the House of Commons because our two Members cancel out one another."
That feeling is understandable and the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not say anything to vitiate its validity. That view was so strongly held that when the inquiry was conducted a recommendation was made and this proposed alteration was wiped out and the Parliamentary borough and the administrative county borough of South Shields are co-terminus with one another.
4.45 p.m.
There is the difficulty that there may sometimes be strong feelings in the non- county boroughs, parishes, urban districts, or county districts which are added to a bit of a county, borough that what happens in Parliamentary representation may very well guide those who have to decide on extensions of county boroughs. It has been denied, and quite rightly, that the two things have anything to do with one another, but one occasionally finds, when a case for an extension of county borough is being made, that there is an indication that administratively they are regarded as a unit and a community—in one particular only—and that that is prayed in aid of the extension of the county borough.
Not knowing the reasons—and even when I was Home Secretary I did not know the reasons which actuated the Boundary Commissioners—adds to the difficulties. As far as I know, the Home Secretary has no right to say to the Boundary Commissioners, "This appears to be a curious constituency which you have arranged. As I have to defend your recommendation in the House of Commons, I should like to know why you have reached this conclusion." Viscount Tenby stood at the Box defending the recommendations, but never said why the Boundary Commissioners had made them, not even in the case of Hackney and Bethnal Green, which was an astounding division.
When discretion is exercised, everyone is entitled to his opinion about whether it has been exercised wisely. However, I am not sure that the Home Secretary is not put in a difficult position, because he has to tell the House, "These people


have decided this. I have listened to the arguments, but they have settled it and we might as well go into the Division Lobbies." I do not think that that is the right way to deal with this matter.
On examination of what has happened, I feel that in all too many cases the discretion was used in favour of bringing what one might call at the highest the suburbs of a county borough into a county borough for Parliamentary purposes. The doctrine of community of interests could not have been given very much weight when that was done. I had hoped that the Amendment would be carried, because county borough boundaries, as much as county boundaries, are the boundaries of an area administered by a county council. Even if the Amendment is not accepted, I hope that that idea will appeal rather more to the Boundary Commissioners in future than it appears to have done in the past.
I am not very much wedded to the belief that we will ever get anything for pure administration which can be justified on merely arithmetical lines. It would be very much more convenient if one could take the figure of 57,000 and always be able to get a ring fence of the dots on the map around units of 57,000 without going over any boundary. However, after that, it is largely a matter of discretion when we are trying to make up the numbers who are to sit in the House of Commons.
It will always be left to somebody's discretion and reasons for the way the discretion has been used would be a help. It is no use saying that the House of Commons retains control of this matter after what we saw happen with the review when Lord Tenby was Home Secretary. I do not blame him for what occurred. He had the reports and, clearly, if the Home Office said, "They have not made much of a job of it, so we will try to do better", we would be involved in all kinds of considerations and suggestions as to why one bit of the map has been redrawn. However, I hope sincerely that in future county boundaries and county borough boundaries will be regarded as equally important in this consideration.
We are a long way from what happened before the Representation of the People Act of 1918. In those days a borough constituency was included in the

county, even where the borough was a county borough, for the purposes of giving ownership votes in the county to people whose property was within the borough. Until 1948 the county constituency of Wimbledon included all the ownership votes, which have now disappeared, in that part of the County of London which, prior to the 1888 Act, was in the ancient County of Surrey.
There may be still the feeling that a county borough is a part of the county. The county borough itself would not admit it in these days, and I have known cases where there is such a state of armed neutrality, at the best, between the county and the county borough as to make it doubtful whether the county would recognise it either.
This is important. I think that the doubt exists. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not accept the Amendment, I hope that one effect of today's discussion may be that, when the next review is made, a county borough will be regarded as having as important a boundary as a county.

Mr. Skeffington: I want to reinforce the pleas made by both my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). First, there is the over-riding consideration that there are likely to be some changes in boundaries both as a result of the Local Government Bill now being discussed upstairs and possibly as a result of the findings of the Royal Commission for the Greater London area. Therefore, I think that this is a subject where perhaps even more care than usual is required because of the many interests involved and the uncertainty of the future of local government boundaries.
The Attorney-General said that as a matter of legal interpretation there was no difference between the categories of boundaries specified in Rule 4. Respectfully, I am sure that that is correct, but our doubt and the reasons for this Amendment arise largely from our experience of what happened on the last occasion. As my right hon. Friend said, a large number of the changes were not explicable on any basis of reason or, indeed in many cases, of mathematical equality. One could not discover the reasons, and it is much to be regretted that none were given by the English


Commission, unlike the Scottish Commission, which gave its reasons and so made its decisions somewhat more acceptable than otherwise they might have been.
Whether or not the status of the different boundaries is legally the same, it is clear that the English Commission, on the last occasion, proceeded to redistribution county by county. It was not a decision of the Act, it was a decision of the Commission, and it caused a good deal of offence to many interests and a great deal of unnecessary interference. The Commission also adopted for England an English electoral quota which was also not specified in the Act.
The result of these two decisions, which were decisions of the English Commission and not of the House of Commons or of the Act, resulted in the infringement of a large number of all the other local government boundaries except the boundaries of counties. One thing we want to assure ourselves about on this side of the Committee is that this will not again be the position when this Bill becomes law.
There were 540 changes as a result of the proposals in the 1948 and 1949 Acts and then 252 further changes which were recommended in the last review. The latter figure was slightly reduced by the time the orders came to the House, as there were only 181 of them, but that was enough. The right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted what my right hon. Friend has said about mathematical equality and the results of the 1948 review, but what happened in the latter review was far worse from the point of view of disturbance. There was far more disturbance last time than previously, in the sense of small alterations of boundaries which could not be justified either on the grounds of logic or on any principles of Parliamentary representation.
In London, the Boundary Commission, using this unauthorised English quota, divided that into the electors, at that time 2,300,000. As a result of that sum there were to be 42 seats for London instead of 43, with the result that the boundaries of four Metropolitan boroughs had to be merged and eight constituencies altered, in addition, to get rid of one constituency. Really, no one could have said that the principles of Parliamentary government would be seriously harmed if there

were 43 Members for London instead of 42. And they did this not only in relation to London. They did it also in the case of the West Riding, where the sum reached by their artificial formula again produced a reduction of seats from 42 to 40.

Mr. Hobson: All in working-class areas, too.

Mr. Skeffington: Sometimes these things seem to ocur in areas in which we have stronger interests, at any rate, when we are sitting on this side of the House. To reduce the 42 seats to 40 again 20 constituency boundaries were interfered with, and eight local authority areas.
That is the recent experience we have suffered. We want to be certain—and we should be failing in our duty if we agreed to this Clause going into the Bill unless we were certain—that this unnecessary interference with local government boundaries will not take place on a future occasion. With respect, although I am sure the Attorney-General believes that this will not happen, we want greater safeguards, which ought to be incorporated in the Bill. I hope, therefore, that he will see fit to add the words proposed, or similar words, which all make certain that this can be secured.

The Attorney-General: The greater safeguard which the hon. Gentleman wants is the safeguard given by Clause 2 (2). In my view, this Amendment does not provide any safeguard. I appreciate from what has been said that the doubts felt arise from what the Commission did, and particularly from the fact that it did so without giving any reasons therefor. I endorse what the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has said about the difficulties that arise from the absence of reasons.
5.0 p.m.
This House has power to over-ride the decisions of the Boundary Commission, but the position of the Home Secretary of the day must be extremely difficult in deciding whether to recommend to this House an alteration in the recommendations of the Commission when he does not know, and is not told, the reasons for which the Commission acted. I have well in mind the difficulties that arose when Lord Tenby was Home Secretary and I remember taking part in those


debates, when the position was one of acute difficulty.
It is not for me to say, and the Act does not provide for it, but if I may express a personal view I feel that it would sometimes help if an indication of the reasons could be given. One can only speculate, but we can, I think, speculate here on fairly valid grounds why, in the cases to which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) referred, departures were made from county borough boundaries. They were made, I think, to secure greater equality of electorates in the various constituencies.
The hon. Member has attacked the application by the last Commission of what he called the English electoral quota. In fact, that has been used each time by the Boundary Commission, the reason being that having regard to the fixed number of seats for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the population in those areas, the electoral quota for the whole of the United Kingdom provides an entirely inadequate and wrong yardstick for the determination of the correct size of the English constituency. That being so—and that is one of the matters dealt with by Clause 3, upon which I do not want to anticipate discussion—and it also being obviously desirable that as nearly as possible English constituencies should have the same electorates, the Commission, I think rightly, applied what the hon. Member called the English electoral quota.
It was not that, however, which led to the disturbances to which the hon. Member drew attention, in the sense of small alterations of boundary. Nor do I think that it was any doubt as to the meaning of Rule 4 (1, a, i) that led to the situation to which the right hon. Member for South Shields drew attention. What led to it was, I believe, the fact that the Commission felt that under the rules as they then were, it did not have sufficient

liberty to depart from the objectives, clearly revealed by the rules, of securing as near as possible a degree of mathematical equality in rural areas. That, I believe, was the real reason.

I agree very much with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the sense of unity and the feeling of a community that it should not be separated, whether inside or outside a county borough. I disagree with him in one respect, in that I hops that the cases where there is strong feeling between a county borough and the rest of the county are not very numerous. Certainly, in my part of the country there is the closest possible association.

The course followed by the Commission last time does not, in my view, show that there is any reason to suppose that there is the slightest doubt as to the interpretation to be placed upon the existing rule or the slightest need for the introduction of a rule headed, "For the avoidance of doubt", because there is, to my mind, no doubt on this matter of legal construction. It has been said already that the chairman of each of the Commissions will now be a judge.

I cannot advise the Committee to insert into the Statute a provision "For the avoidance of doubt" when there is no doubt as to the legal interpretation of the Statute. The application of that Statute is another matter. Its application in the past has, as I have sought to indicate, been due to the difficulty created by the boroughs having electorates in excess of the quota and the feeling of the Boundary Commission that it was compelled by the rules to make adjustments to secure more uniformity in electorates. It is given greater discretion by subsection (2) as it stands and I can only advise the Committee that any further Amendment of this nature is wholly unnecessary.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 117, Noes 174.

Division No. 81.]
AYES
[5.7 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Brockway, A. F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Balfour, A.
Callaghan, L. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Beswick, Frank
Chetwynd, G. R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Blackburn, F.
Clunie, J.
Deer, G


Blyton, W. R.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Boardman, H.
Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Cove, W. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Boyd, T. C.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)




Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Fletcher, Eric
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Short, E. W.


Foot, D. M.
Mason, Roy
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


George,Lady MeganLloyd(Car'then)
Mikardo, Ian
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Gibson, C. W.
Michison, G. R.
Skeffington, A. M.


Greenwood, Anthony
Moody, A. S.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Sparks, J. A.


Hastings, S.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Steele, T.


Hayman, F. H,
Oliver, G. H.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A.(Rwly Regis)
Oram, A. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Owen, W. J.
Swingler, S. T.


Holman, P.
Paget, R. T.
Thornton, E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Tomney, F.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Viant, S. P.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Parker, J.
Weitzman, D.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Parkin, B. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Paton, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pearson, A.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pentland, N.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Prentice, R. E.
Willey, Frederick


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


King, Dr. H. M.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Randall, H. E.
Woof, R. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Rankin, John
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Lipton, Marcus
Redhead, E. C.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McCann, J.
Reeves, J.



MacColl, J. E,
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Ross, William
Mr. John Taylor and




Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fort, R.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Aitken, W. T.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Gammans, Lady
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Alport, C. J. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major sir William
Glover, D.
McAdden, S. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Armstrong, C. W.
Godber, J. B.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Ashton, H.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)


Atkins, H. E.
Gough, C. F. H.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Baldwin, A. E.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Barber, Anthony
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr.R.(Nantwich)
Maddan, Martin


Barlow, Sir John
Grimond, J.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marshall, Douglas


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harris, Reader (Heston>
Mathew, R.


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mawby, R. L.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Body, R. F.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Moore, Sir Thomas


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Oakshott, H. D.


Bryan, P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hope, Lord John
Osborne, C.


Channon, Sir Henry
Hornby, R. P.
Page, R. G.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Partridge, E.


Cooper, A. E.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Peel, W. J.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hurd, A. R.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hyde, Montgomery
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Powell, J. Enoch


Cunningham, Knox
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Currie, G. B. H.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Profumo, J. D.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter


Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Redmayne, M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Remnant, Hon. p.


Errington, Sir Eric
Lagden, G. W.
Renton, D. L. M.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lambton, Viscount
Ridsdale, J. E.


Fell, A.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Finlay, Graeme
Leavey, J. A.
Robertson, Sir David


Fisher, Nigel
Leburn, W. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Russell, R. S.







Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Sharples, R. C.
Teeling, W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Shepherd, William
Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Williams, Paul (Sutherland, S.)


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Speir, R. M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Woollam, John Victor


Stevens, Geoffrey
Vane, W. M. F.



Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Vickers, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Mr. Wills and Mr. Legh.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end to add:
(3) For the avoidance of doubt and notwithstanding any previous practice, it is hereby declared that, subject to the application of rule 6 of the said rules to any constituency to which by reason of special geographical considerations that rule relates, nothing in those rules enjoins or justifies any difference between the average electorates of urban and rural constituencies, as such, or the average electorates of borough and county constituencies, as such.
This is another Amendment designed to remove doubt. The question of practice in this case is a litle more clear than it was in the previous one. Let me begin by stating what the difficulty is and how I believe it has arisen. In terms, the rules provide for one exceptional case—mostly, from its nature, a rural case. Rule 6 provides that
A Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last two foregoing rules"—
and I would add that the last two foregoing rules are themselves grafted on to the first three—
if special geographical considerations, including in particular the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency, appear to them to render a departure desirable.
I suggest that it is obvious to what type of case the rule applies. It applies not merely to a rural constituency, but to a special type of rural constituency. Some instances are obvious, the most obvious being the crofting counties in Scotland and some similar areas in Wales. We can all argue whether or not there may be other cases; it is arguable that one or two English constituencies might be regarded in the same light. However, that is a matter for the Commission, because special geographical considerations have to appear to the Commission to render a departure from the previous rules desirable. It is not a matter which was intended to be decided in the rules themselves; on the contrary, it was expressly left to the Commission.
Of one thing there can be no reasonable doubt. The rule is not intended to

make any general distinction between the country and the town, or between a county and a borough constituency; it is wholly inappropriate for that purpose. In the ordinary case of a county constituency, in Surrey, for example, it is pretty obvious that the rule will not apply. If we take the County of Northampton, one division of which I have the honour to represent, it is quite clear that none of its constituencies are of that type. If the Boundary Commission chooses to apply the rule rather more widely or narrowly than other people, that does not matter; the point is that it is a rule for special cases.
Subject to the application of the rule, which applies only where there are special geographical considerations, there is no distinction between urban and rural constituencies, or borough and county constituencies. Accordingly it follows that, as such, no distinction is made in the rules with regard to their average electorates. It could be put in, but it certainly is not in. The trouble is that in this case, at any rate, the Commission certainly acted as if there were such a distinction. The passage of the Report which I have in mind is that at the beginning of paragraph 14, which says:
In our initial Report we express the view, that, in general, urban constituencies could more conveniently support large electorates than rural constituencies and our recommendations were framed so as to enable recognition to be given to this view.
Then, the Commission refers to the addition of the borough constituencies in 1948, and continues:
The modification by Parliament of those recommendations, resulting in the creation of additional constituencies in a number of the larger boroughs, had the incidental effect of upsetting the balance that we had thought appropriate between the electorates of urban and rural constituencies. We have given considerable thought to the treatment to be accorded to the areas thus affected.
The Report goes on to deal further with the matter. It is perfectly clear that the Commission believed that it carried in its mind an appropriate balance between


the electorates of urban and rural constituencies. There is nothing whatever in the rules to justify anything of the sort, and it is open to one very obvious objection.
If, in fact, the Commission was trying to strike a balance of that sort and to consider how far recognition should be given to that view, then it ought to have considered the facts about the constituencies concerned, and ought to have taken evidence—not only as regards this, that and the other constituency, but generally—as to the position between rural and urban areas. Of course, the Commission did nothing of the sort, and the balance which it had in mind was a general balance. It has the incidental effect of upsetting the balance that we had thought appropriate between the electorates of urban and rural constituencies. It is not a particular case, but a general balance, and that general balance was something which the Commission devised in its own mind, and, so far as I can see, by no light whatever, except, remarkably, an intuitional one.
That really will not do. The Commission is not set up to form opinions on general considerations of that nature. It is not set up to take account of factors which are not in the rules. It is particularly not set up to take account of factors the weight and quantitative effect of which cannot be within the knowledge of the members of the Commission, and must be a matter of highly individual opinion, in so far as it is not a question of actual evidence.
It is for a very good reason that the Statute does not require this balance to be struck or this view to be formed, and it is not because it is a matter that has been omitted, for in the different, but not wholly dissimilar, case of the special areas—the places where special geographical considerations have to be taken into account—there is a direction, and this has been followed out. If we look at the average electorates of the crofting counties in Scotland and corresponding areas in Wales, we see that they are very definitely below the average, and I hope that nothing I say today will be taken to indicate that I find any fault with that. I see a very good reason for what is in the Statute—for instance, the special treatment of an area like the County of Argyll, which I know well. To get from

one end of it to another is an extremely difficult matter, and this is what the word "accessibility" means.
On the question of size in relation to population, I should guess that it is much bigger in relation to its population than any constituency in England. It is certainly bigger than most. As regards its shape, if anybody ever tried travelling along the coastline of Argyll, he would go an extremely long journey to arrive at a point not nearly so far distant from that from which he started as the devious ways he will have followed—up one sea loch and down another, round this bend and that one—along one of the most rocky and indented coasts of the country. If we wanted to convene the County Council of Argyll, it would be no use expecting the members to use railway trains. They would come by a strange diversity of routes and a strange variety of methods of carriage, some by air, some by sea, some by road, and occasionally, but only very occasionally, with a little help—and no more—from the railways.
This is exactly the type of constituency to which Rule 6 is intended to relate; but to try to apply it to justify striking some balance between a county constituency in Surrey or in Northampton and an urban borough constituency within the same geographical area would be to apply a complete misreading of what the rules are about and of the directions which they give to the Commission.
I must at once not only admit but assert something. There is not the least doubt that, on the political balance in this country, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are much more listened to and heeded in the remote countryside, where ideas, perhaps, penetrate rather more slowly, than they are among the more quick-witted—I think I may say, with all respect to the countryside—inhabitants of the towns. On political considerations, the balance is quite obviously in our favour in the urban districts, and, by and large, in the borough constituencies, and in favour of the party opposite in the county constituencies and the rural areas. From our political point of view, to look at the Home Counties is occasionally a trifle depressing; not so when we look at the large industrial centres, or even at London itself.
That being so, it is the more necessary that the party opposite, being in power at the moment, should be completely frank on this matter, and should make certain that the directions to the Commission by these statutory rules should be followed. If they have been misunderstood or misapplied that should be corrected, for there is a duty on the Home Secretary of the day to have a measure of impartiality in this matter.
5.30 p.m.
I can see no justification whatever for one vote in the country counting for more than a vote in a town. The actual figures show a difference of a few thousand. The difference at present is an average of about 4,000; but I do not think that is the point. It may very well be that, for other reasons, there was some difference between the two averages. I am interested only that, in the name of justice as between one electorate and another, and between one political party and another, we should declare clearly that to strike a general balance of some sort and to make a general distinction between urban or rural constituencies—or their more strict counterparts, borough and county constituencies—is not justified by the rules and is not enjoined by them and is, in fact, quite wrong.
From the passages which I quoted, there can be do doubt that the last Boundary Commission did it. There can be no doubt that if we look at the electorates for England there is a discrepancy, part of which may possibly be explained on other grounds. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned that we should indicate clearly and simply to this judicial and official Commission that these are the rules; that they must be carried out, and that they do not justify any distinction between the average electorate of one type of constituency and that of another.
Of course, there may be differences in the electorate as between one borough constituency and another. Equally, there may be a difference between one county and another or between a borough and a county. I am not concerned with that. I am concerned that an error into which in this case the Commission indubitably fell shall not be repeated. That it has been done once should not serve as an excuse or reason for it being repeated.

Mr. John Parker: I wish to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). It is important that this difference because of size between county and borough constituencies should be terminated. I agree with what was said by my hon. and learned Friend about the remote parts of the Highlands or Wales, and the need to have constituencies there with smaller electorates to ensure that the people are adequately represented in this House. But in considering the greater part of the English countryside one realises that it is not difficult to get from one part of a constituency to another. In fact under modern traffic conditions in some cases it may be easier to travel by rural roads rather than by main roads through industrial areas.
This idea of the county areas having a smaller average electorate than that of the towns is based upon the conditions prevailing in the pre-motor car age. I should have thought that in these days, when political speakers go about by car from one part of their constituency to another, whether they are fighting an election or attending functions in the ordinary work of a constituency member, there is no need for that distinction in size to be maintained. Even more important is the feeling among many of us that this is a form of political discrimination in favour of one party.
At the last General Election when the present Government came to power there were a larger number of constituencies where the number of votes for the Government dropped than there were in the 1951 Election when the increase in the Government majority was due mainly to the fact that the Labour Party dropped more votes than the Conservative Party. It is important to realise that in the 1951 General Election the Labour Party won a larger number of votes in the country than did the Conservative Party, yet the Conservative Party secured a majority of seats in this House. That was due partly to the fact that the Labour Party votes were more concentrated than those of the Conservative Party. There were many constituencies like my own with a large majority of Labour votes while the Conservative votes were spread over a wider area. That was to their advantage and it gave them more seats. The areas over which the Conservative votes were spread tended to be county areas, and a


bias in favour of the county areas would be to the electoral advantage of the Conservative Party—as it was in 1951 and as it has been throughout General Elections. That, of course, may not be so at the next Election.
We should not, however, look at this matter from the point of view of whether a General Election gives an advantage one way or the other, but with the idea of ensuring that the political forces are adequately represented in this House. I think it a disadvantage to our political system if we frequently have General Elections which lead to a majority in the House of a political view different from that of the majority of the electorate. In the last century, under a two-party system, that rarely happened. Once or twice there was a majority of voters whose views were not in accordance with the majority of those elected to the House. One famous occasion was when Mr. Disraeli came to power with a minority of the electorate behind him, but generally speaking, that did not happen, and under a two-party system it is not likely to happen.
At present, however, with a three-party system, it is a distinct possibility that a party may come to power, but that a second party may have received more votes. That should be avoided. We should have normal-sized electorates in constituencies of approximately the same size all over the country and bear in mind the point about them coinciding so far as possible with local government units. We should give instructions to the Boundary Commission—as we should if the Amendment were accepted—to see that in future when drawing up the constituency boundaries it does not give an advantage to county areas as opposed to urban areas.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): Before replying to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) I wish to challenge a statement by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). From personal experience I can say that the use of a motor car does not enable one to serve a rural constituency with the same facility as one can serve an urban constituency. In a three-week Election campaign in Huntingdonshire I have to travel over 1,000 miles, and in order to visit less than half of the committee rooms I must

travel over 100 miles. It takes the best part of two or three years for me to get round the constituency, which includes eighty villages and half-a-dozen small towns. I do not know how many weeks it would take the hon. Member for Dagenham to get round his constituency but I can assure him that his is a very different problem. I think that should be stressed because it is fundamental to our discussions.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering based his case strictly on the interpretation of the rules, and I will endeavour to deal with the matter in the same way. I have no quarrel with the hon. and learned Gentleman about Rule 6. That rule applies, not to the average run of rural constituencies in England, for example, but to those constituencies where there are geographical considerations. It is interesting to read the rules and note that it is not size, shape, or accessibility, but a combination of all three factors, that must apply before the rule can be brought into operation. I mention that because it emphasises the somewhat narrow scope of Rule 6.
The intention of the Amendment which the hon. and learned. Gentleman has submitted is clear from its emphatic wording. The essential meaning is—to paraphrase it—that nothing except special geographical considerations justifies any difference between the average electorates for urban and rural or borough and county constituencies.

Mr. Mitchison: If the hon. and learned Gentleman would add the words "as such" that are in the Amendment he would be nearer. There are other circumstances to be taken into account. All I am saying is that the Boundary Commission did make a distinction between them as such.

Mr. Renton: That brings me immediately to what the Boundary Commission did and why it did it. It found, in the period up to 1947, that there was a disparity—I think there has always been one—between the electorates of urban and rural constituencies since the rationalisation brought about by the Reform Act. In 1954, there was a disparity of about 1,700. As the result of the review of that year the disparity, as the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned earlier, reached nearly 4,000. What he may not


know and what it is material for the Committee to consider, is that the disparity on the 1957 register has readjusted itself to 1,625.
Therefore, when the hon. and learned Gentleman speaks about the Boundary Commission having offended the rules by creating a disparity, we have to bear in mind that there has always been some disparity and that the greatest disparity which it created was just under 4,000, which, in an average electorate of 57,000 in England, gives us a difference between an average of 55,000 for rural constituencies and of 59,000 for urban constituencies. Neither figure is unreasonable.

Mr. Mitchison: It tried to create a disparity of 6,000 but Parliament stepped in and gave the seats to the boroughs. The hon. and learned Gentleman's party complained.

Mr. Renton: Perhaps it is material to consider what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman's party, which was in power at the time. It is true that in 1948 the party considered that the Boundary Commission's 1947 review contained undue weighting for county constituencies, but none the less the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when he was Home Secretary, said that the Government accepted the view that there was a reason for giving some advantage in numbers to county divisions.
In 1954, when we were discussing the orders following the review of that year, the right hon. Member for South Shields said that he had contested both rural and urban constituencies and knew the extra strain placed on a candidate in a county division. This year, in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, he said he stood by that. He said there was ground for some slight weighting where there was a genuine county constituency. I do not wish to take the right hon. Gentleman's case any further than he wished it to be taken on that occasion. He went on to qualify this statement by adding that some county constituencies were more urban than rural.

Mr. Ede: I could illustrate that by the Surrey constituency in which I live, which consists of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell and the urban district of Leather-head. It might just as well for all

practical purposes have been called a borough.

Mr. Renton: I fully accept that, but the right hon. Gentleman's intervention does not in any way destroy the validity of his earlier statement which I have quoted, to the effect that there are genuine rural constituencies in which, for one reason or another, we may expect to find a slight weighting. From the figures I have given, I do not think the weighting can be said to be other than slight; 1,625 on an average of 57,000 is very slight weighting indeed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made the point which, on the face of it, is technically good, that there is nothing in the 1949 Act or in the rules made under it, which justifies a disparity between urban and rural or county and borough constituencies, as such. I accept the force of those words "as such", because they are important in this context. That seems to be so, and if it is, there is no need for an Amendment starting with the words:
For the avoidance of doubt …
Let us consider not merely the rules but the way in which they have come to be operated. In operating the rules, the Boundary Commission has clearly acted in accordance with Rule 4, and in accordance with the kind of sentiment discussed on earlier Amendments today it finds itself obliged to follow local government boundaries where possible. When dealing with the boundaries of rural local government areas it necessarily has to embrace quite large territories which are sparsely populated. That reason alone accounts for the very slight weighting between rural and urban areas and fully justifies it.
I was prepared, in case the matter should arise, to make a most impassioned speech saying that, quite apart from what is in the rules, it was clearly right and just, in order that our constituents might be properly served, that the representation in rural areas should not be as heavy as in urban areas, but the case is so clearly understood and has been so clearly put by the right hon. Member for South Shields in the past, that there is no need for me to do so. I come back to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, in relation to what the rules contain.


5.45 p.m.
The rules themselves are plain enough. Rule 6 makes special provision, and Rule 4 says that local government boundaries have to be followed. The necessary and, indeed, inevitable result of that, coupled with other factors which it might not be in order to discuss on this Amendment, leads to a disparity. The disparity itself can be justified on broad, historical and practical grounds. Surely the Commission, in exercising what is, after all, a discretion in the interpretation of these rules, is not only entitled but obliged to bear in mind the historical and practical reasons.
I wish to assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman—

Mr. Mitchison: No, not that.

Mr. Renton: The hon. and learned Gentleman has so often the prestige of a Privy Councillor when he speaks that one tends to make that mistake. I assure him that this matter has received the most careful consideration, and that neither from the point of view that he expresses, nor in order to achieve greater clarity in the Bill, nor in order to put forward the point of view that I was tempted to deploy but did not, is his Amendment necessary.

Mr. Parker: I have been a Parliamentary candidate in the rural area of Holland with Boston. I agree, of course, that candidature in such a rural area is very hard work, but I do not think that that rules out the argument that in the days of the motor car there is no justification for special representation there. That particular seat, of course, is in one of the most prosperous agricultural parts of the country. It has an electorate of about 70,000, as well as covering an enormous area. It must have about the largest agricultural electorate but I do not think that that fact justifies a bias in favour of agricultural areas.
The point has been made about the bias now being only 1,625 instead of 4,000 to the advantage of the county constituencies as opposed to the urban, but I should have thought that that change was largely due to the growth of industrialisation in a limited number of county seats; and that if some of the seats—such as Epsom, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)—

were transferred from the county to the urban list the difference would be very much larger, and much closer to the 4,000 that previously existed.
We may still find more industrialisation taking place in the seats round the big towns which would, on figures, possibly abolish the distinction altogether, whilst still leaving a very real bias in favour of what I would call the real rural areas. That fact should be borne in mind when the figures are considered.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: It was my misfortune to come in rather late to what has all the character of a somewhat esoteric discussion, but perhaps I might support the proposition just advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker).
I understand that the disparity of 1,600 is that between the average electorate of the county constituency and of the urban one. It seems to me, and I appreciate that this is really my hon. Friend's point, that if that is the basis of calculation, its significance may be very nearly entirely destroyed if it be the fact that some of the county constituencies are urban constituencies in all but designation and name.
So far as I have followed the argument, I should have thought, bearing in mind that factor, that a case had certainly been made out that it would be appropriate to take steps to ensure that a disproportionate overweighting in favour of county constituencies was something to be avoided.

Mr. Ede: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary, in what he said was not the impassioned speech that, in certain circumstances, he might have delivered, quoted me as having made pronouncements on this subject in the past. Of course, when quoting me, he did not give due weight to the word "slight". He quoted it and then proceeded to assume that it could be ignored. My own view is that an average difference of 1,625 is not slight. I should have thought that the Boundary Commission could have got a great deal closer if it had regarded this from the urban and rural point of view rather than that of county and borough, because the words are not quite interchangeable. All borough seats are not entirely urban, and, certainly, a large number of county seats are not, in any sense of the word, rural.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has sought to make a distinction between what he said about a previous position and that with which we are faced today by defining the word "slight." It is entirely a matter of judgment and opinion, but, with all respect, we do not agree with him. We consider that in relation to an average of 57,000, 1,600 is a slight distinction, and that, in all the circumstances and all the difficulties with which the Boundary Commission has been faced, it has done a good job if it has managed to get the averages within 1,600 of each other.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like to liven up this discussion a little, as I regard the defence put forward by the Government as absolutely scandalous. The 1949 Act clearly states that
Each Boundary Commission shall keep under review the representation in the House of Commons of the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned and shall, in accordance with the next following subsection"—
and that is the subsection relating to time, and so on:
submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom, either … showing the constituencies into which they recommend that it should be divided"—
and for what purpose:
in order to give effect to the rules set out in the Second Schedule to this Act …
and for no other purpose.
The idea that some sentimental association of the hon. and learned Gentleman's with Huntingdonshire or general considerations of the balance to be struck between countryside and town should enter into the matter at all strikes me as conferring on the Boundary Commissions a distinction and a duty which the Act that constituted them has not conferred on them—

Mr. Renton: As the hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned my representation of Huntingdonshire, perhaps I may tell him that I happen to represent the whole of an administrative county which had an electorate of 45,000 last time and may have one of about 50,000 next time. Does he say that, for the sake of some mathematical provision, the boundaries of that parliamentary constituency should be extended so as to take in part of

some other county? If so, I should have thought that there were very few people who would agree with him.

Mr. Mitchison: So should I, and that is not what I was saying. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would pay a little more attention to the substance of the matter and a little less to the metaphysical deductions that he chooses to make from perfectly clear statements, we should get on a little better. After all, Oliver Cromwell came from those parts, and his language about this sort of thing would have been very forthright.
6.0 p.m.
Unless or until the House alters the law, the Government should carry it out. The law lays down that the Boundary Commission has to carry out the reviews in accordance with the rules. What the Government are trying to do is to add on top of the rules a number of quite different things. When he gets up, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will, no doubt, manage somehow or other to engraft them into the rules. I wish him all success. But, in fact, the Boundary Commission did not do that.
What the Boundary Commission did was to try to strike a balance, to give weight to its own views as to the relative convenience of a rural constituency or an urban constituency, or, if one likes, of a borough and a county constituency. The difference is smaller. No doubt it may exist. I do not say that it does not. All I say is that it is not a matter upon which the Boundary Commission had any ground for forming a view at all. It is not a matter upon which it took any evidence. It is not a matter it was charged to consider by the terms of the rules, and the Commission was thereby giving to itself a discretion and duty which it cannot justify in the terms of the Act.
All I ask for in this Amendment is that this should simply be stated. I defy the right hon. and learned Gentleman to get up and tell me that there is any distinction in the Act either between urban and rural constituencies—neither of which, of course, is mentioned in the Act—or between borough and county constituencies. What there is is a wholly separate point, which I am glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman on behalf of the Government accept so unreservedly, that Rule 6 does provide for


some special cases. I share his view as to what those separate cases are. There is no doubt about that. Apart from that, there is no distinction at all.
The fact is that, in this instance at any rate, there can be no doubt that the Boundary Commission acted on a distinction and sought to strike a general, not a particular, balance between rural and urban constituencies and to form its own view, on a matter of policy, as to what the balance should be and what advantage in votes should be given to those who live in the countryside as against those who live in the town. I am not asking for mathematical exactitude. I am not asking for similarity in all these points. All I am asking is that it should be made quite clear that even the Government and the Boundary Commission must carry out the law.
Finally, we have the somewhat startling defence, the classic defence about the poor illegitimate child—"It's only a little one". And this from the Home Office! I should have thought that the Home Office would be the last place to produce that particular defence. It really puzzles me. If the Home Office or the Boundary Commission is going to break the law, does it matter whether the breach will be a large one or a small one? In fact, the numbers have fluctuated. They were up to 6,000 as an average, if the Report of the Boundary Commission had been accepted by the House. It was not, and the seats were given to the boroughs. Then the figure came back to 1,900, then up again to 4,000, and now it is back to 1,500 or 1,600. Obviously, it may vary one way or the other.
Equally obviously, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, these figures do not touch the reality of the matter. It is not a question of whether a constituency is one of a large number of constituencies that are county constituencies or of similar ones which are not county constituencies. It is the substance of the thing which matters, and the substance is that the yokel in the countryside has more value for his vote than a workman in the city.
There is another matter of substance, a very important one, which I do not want to have neglected. The Conservative Party profits by this anomaly. However small or however large the illegitimate child may be—and this is an

illegitimate child to the extent that it exists at all—the Conservative Party profits. The Government ought not to hesitate to put matters right in the Bill. There is no doubt that it has not been acted upon. There is no doubt that we are now to have a judicial and official Commission which will look at its rules.
The trouble is that it may also look at the doings of previous Boundary Commissioners, some of whom themselves have had legal and official associations. The Commission may say that this repeated illegality, this succession of little bastards coming along one after the other in this manner, may result in the practice acquiring the force of law. Really, some of the contentions of the hon. and learned Gentleman were quite remarkably like it—"It has been done before," "It is a reasonable thing to do"—and, therefore, he suggested, the Boundary Commission ought to do it.
The Boundary Commission is bound by these rules. If it is sought to put something else into them, the right thing to do is to put it in in terms, and to have the matter properly argued, not to let illegalities creep in, to the advantage of one political party, by mere repetition.

The Attorney-General: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that he wanted to liven up the debate, and he has strained very hard to achieve that object. I must say that I cannot congratulate him upon the arguments that he has advanced to do so. He sought to make some reflections upon the Home Office and its attitude to what he regards as a little breach of the law, and he sought to make a substantial attack upon the Boundary Commission, praying in aid what he conceives that Oliver Cromwell might or might not have done in Huntingdon. Really, his argument cuts right across the arguments he has advanced on previous Amendments. There is no ground whatever for his unwarranted attack upon the Boundary Commission and how it operated.
I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to pay attention to this particular factor. If one preserves the local communities, the boroughs, where the population is in excess of the electoral quota—and we recognise and agree that that should be done—it is quite impossible that one should maintain as high an average for


the county constituencies as one does for the boroughs, unless one makes county constituencies of a size which it would really be quite impracticable for an ordinary Member, of whatever party, adequately to represent. It follows from the proposition that one should depart from mathematical accuracy in having regard to local ties and community interests that one encounters the impossibility of achieving a precise equality of average electorates between counties and boroughs.
It is very easy to say that the workman in the county has more value attached to his vote than the workman in the town. But that must follow inevitably if one accepts the proposition that, because in a borough all people want to vote in that borough and nowhere else, the electorate in the borough is kept above the electoral quota. It must happen. But, as I see it, it does not follow that the Boundary Commission, which has a duty and discretion, was in any way guilty of a breach of the law. If it had been, it would have been possible to take proceedings in the courts with regard to it.

Mr. Mitchison: The difficulty is that, although the Boundary Commission did not give many explanations, it did explain, in the passage I read out before, what it did in this respect, and it was not what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it did. The Commission did make a distinction of kind between the two types of constituency.

The Attorney-General: We have all read the Commission's Report. I am trying to point out that there is no escape from this fact if the hon. and learned Gentleman insists on the average for the county divisions being the same as the average for the borough divisions. That is the point of the Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: No.

The Attorney-General: I seem to be succeeding, where the hon. and learned Gentleman did not, in enlivening the proceedings, although I do not wish to do so.
The efforts which we have made in past years to secure the acceptance of a mathematical principle have always landed us in difficulties. Here again, one cannot

completely match the average for counties and the average for boroughs if one gives preference, as I submit that one should, to the community interest and local ties which the Bill recognises. In both its Reports the Commission has acted in precisely the same way in this respect.
May I give another reason why the Committee would be most unwise to accept the Amendment? The rules apply to England, Scotland and Wales, and the Amendment says:
Nothing in those rules enjoins or justifies any difference between the average electorates of urban and rural constituencies, as such, or the average electorates of borough and county constituencies, as such".
That being so, the provision has a general application. That means, as a matter of interpretation, that throughout the United Kingdom we should have to have the same average electorate for borough and county constituencies, and for urban and rural constituencies. Because the provision for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland membership is in Rule 1, this would mean that one would have to depart from the rules—that is to say, reduce the Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh representation in the House—to secure the maintenance of this average between borough and county constituencies.
There is nothing in the Amendment which limits its application to England. We have three different Boundary Commissions, but the rules which they have to apply are the same for each Commission. If it is to be declared that there is nothing in the rules at all which justifies any difference, it seems to me to follow that this would open up the whole question of Scottish, Northern Ireland and Welsh representation.
For this and other reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. In my belief there is no need whatever for a provision of this sort. Indeed, a provision of this sort might well cause very great difficulties for the Boundary Commission, having regard to its possible impact on the other rules.

Mr. Mitchison: if the construction put forward in his last observation is the construction which the Attorney-General puts on the Amendment, he had better think again. What it says is perfectly clear. It refers to the average electorates of those types of constituency as such.


It is clear that it applies in the same way to England, Scotland and Wales and that it would have no effect whatever on any differences between averages in England, Scotland and Wales.
I will not argue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about it, partly because of the distinguished office which he holds and the respect which, for that reason, I am compelled to pay to his opinions, and partly for another and simpler reason, which is that he knows quite well what the Amendment intends. If he chooses to say that it does not have the intended effect, he must answer the question: does he agree with the intention or not? If he does, then, on Report he should put down an Amendment which, in his opinion, is more suited to the purpose.
It is complete nonsense to say that the Amendment has any connection whatever with other factors which will no doubt affect the average when we get them. The point is that the Boundary Commission not merely gave effect to those factors, but said, in terms, that it had struck a

balance between rural constituencies as such and urban constituencies as such. It said that it had struck a general balance. Apart from the circumstances which may affect many rural constituencies in one way and many urban constituencies in another, the Commission drew a definite general balance and made a general distinction—and that we say it had no right to do on the rules.

All we wish is that the clear meaning of the rules should be stated—and it is stated, notwithstanding previous practice. We think it the more necessary because the excess of authority in this matter has clearly inured to the benefit of one political party as against another. We ask for fair treatment, the law as laid down in this Statute, and no more illegitimate excursions defended by the Home Office on the ground that they are only little ones.

Question put, That those words be there added:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 105, Noes 160.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[6.18 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hayman, F. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Randall, H. E.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Rankin, John


Beswick, Frank
Holman, P.
Redhead, E. C.


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Douglas
Reeves, J.


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Silver-man, Julius (Aston)


Boyd, T. C.
Johnston, James (Rugby)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Brockway, A. F.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Skeffington, A. M.


Callaghan, L. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lewis, Arthur
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Chetwynd G. R.
Lipton, Marcus
Sparks, J. A.


Clunie, J.
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Swingler, S. T.


Cove, W. G.
Mellish, R. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dal[...]on, Rt. Hon. H.
Mitchison, G. R.
Thornton, E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Moody, A. S.
Tomney, F.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Viant, S. P.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W.Brmwch)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Weitzman, D.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Oliver, G. H.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Oram, A. E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fletcher, Eric
Owen, W. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Foot, D. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Willey, Frederick


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Parker, J.
Woof, R. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Parkin, B. T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Greenwood, Anthony
Paton, John
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Grey, C. F.
Pentland, N.



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Prentice, R. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Mr. Short and Mr. Deer.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Mawby, R. L.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Grant-Ferris. Wg Cdr. R.(Nantwich)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Grimond, J.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Arbuthnot, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Armstrong, C. W.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Ashton, H.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Oakshott, H. D.


Atkins, H. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Barber, Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Page, R. G.


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Partridge, E.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Peel, W. J.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bingham, R. M.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bishop, F. P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, R. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hornby, R. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Profumo, J. D.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Rawlinson, Peter


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Redmayne, M.


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hyde, Montgomery
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Channon, Sir Henry
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Remnant, Hon. P.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Renton, D. L. M.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Corfield, Cant. F. V.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Roper, Sir Harold


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Russell, R. S.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Sharples, R. C.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lagden, G. W.
Shepherd, William


Cunningham, Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Currie, G. B. H.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Davidson, Viscountess
Leavey, J. A.
Speir, R. M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Fell, A.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Teeling, W.


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Temple, John M.


Fisher, Nigel
McAdden, S. J.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vane, W. M. F.


Fort, R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Gammans, Lady
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Maddan, Martin
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Glover, D.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Godber, J. B.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Woollam, John victor


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Marshall, Douglas



Gough, C. F. H.
Mathew, R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. E. Wakefield and Mr. Bryan.

Mr. Julian Snow: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the end to add:
(3) Sub-paragraph (a) (iv) of paragraph (1) of rule 4 of the said rules (which provides that, so far as is practicable, no county district shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another) shall cease to have effect.
The intention of the Amendment, which has not attracted very much visible support, is purely exploratory, to find out what is in the Government's mind about a point which I hope to develop.
The latter part of Clause 2, as drafted, refers to Rule 4. Its effect would be that all parts of Rule 4, other than those which the Committee has amended so far, will continue to apply. The effect

of my Amendment would be to cancel Rule 4 (1, a, iv) which refers to county district boundaries. I understand that under Section 11 of the Local Government Act, 1933, it lies with the counties, if they consider it necessary, to initiate county district boundary reform or readjustment. They can make representations, accordingly, to the Home Secretary and, during a six weeks period, objections may be lodged.
The effect of this can be that it will lie with a county council completely to alter the political complexion of a county constituency. I think I am right in saying that this applies fairly exclusively, though possibly not entirely, to county constituencies. The kind of case I have in mind


is where the detachment of a large parish from one county district and its attachment to another, with the consequential boundary adjustment, can substantially alter the political complexion of two Parliamentary constituencies. That is, of course, on the assumption that the present present Rule 4 (1, a, iv) continues to apply.
My point, therefore, is whether it is the intention that political initiative in the matter of the political complexions of counties can lie—and I use the expression "can lie"—with a county council. I hope that I have made my point clear, though I should like to record that in my judgment it would be wrong to take away from county councils the right to readjust boundaries of county districts. I only want to ascertain whether it has been realised what could be the political consequences should a county council get into extremist hands at that level.

Mr. Renton: The Amendment will have the effect of deleting from Rule 4 the provision that in England and Wales no county district shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another so far as that can practically be avoided. In practice, it has been avoided nearly always. Only in the rarest cases has it had to be done. It would be a pity to strike it out altogether, because there might be very rare cases where it would be the only way of resolving a great difficulty in deciding among a group of constituencies exactly where the boundary should be.
That is the substance of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. But he has raised a separate point. I hope that I may be in order in reassuring him about his question whether county councils will still have the power which they have under local government legislation to alter the county district boundaries within their own areas. May I give that assurance to the hon. Gentleman? We are dealing with legislation for Parliamentary boundaries, and that does not in any way affect the rules or laws relating to the boundaries of local government.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Snow: I feel that I have either not made myself clear, or that the Minister has not taken my point about the question of political initiative on Parliamentary divisions by county councils.

Mr. Renton: The position is that an individual or a local authority may at any time make representation to the Parliamentary boundary commission to suggest that a particular Parliamentary constituency needs review. That right is present, and it will remain.

Mr. Snow: I feel that I must persevere with this point. It is true that the initiative is present and, so far as I can see, should remain with a county council to alter its own district boundaries. What I do not understand is this, and perhaps the Minister can explain. Suppose, for example, that it is desirable to transfer a tightly knit and well populated parish from one county district to another. The effect of that transference can completely alter the political complexion of one of the districts concerned. I gather that the Minister agrees with me so far. Since a Parliamentary constituency should normally only comprise whole county districts, and not parts of county districts, does it not follow that a county council can initiate a change in the political complexion of a constituency?

The Attorney-General: The county council can initiate a change which may affect the political complexion of constituencies, but it would not be right for any county council to seek to make such a change in local government areas solely for the purpose of altering the political complexion of Parliamentary representation. I trust that different considerations would prevail in relation to a change of parish, for instance, from one district to another district. But the hon. Gentleman is right when he says that, if that change is made, then, so far as is practicable, the Boundary Commission would try to make the Parliamentary boundaries accord with the county district boundaries and thus avoid having part of the county district in one constituency and part in another.

Sir Godfrey Nicholson: I am not satisfied with that explanation. The Attorney-General says that it would be entirely wrong for a county council to attempt to alter district boundaries for reasons of political prejudice or partisanship. Would it not be right and proper that the Parliamentary boundaries, having been decided and laid down, should not in any case be altered except by the Boundary Commissioners?

The Attorney-General: The Parliamentary boundaries will not be altered except upon a recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners. The point put to me was whether, in view of the rules, the recommendations of the Boundary Commission would follow so far as is practicable the local authority divisions. It depends on the circumstances, but the answer would be "Yes" for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Snow: We are indebted to the learned Attorney-General for putting on record, as I hoped he would, that it would be improper for a county council to alter deliberately the political complexion of a constituency. I take it from that observation that, in any representations that might be made by county councils to the Home Office, that sort of danger would be taken into consideration.

The Attorney-General: Any representations from a county council would no doubt be considered on their merits. While it is open to any county council to advance any arguments that it likes for a change, it would have to be borne in mind that one could not properly condemn a county council for what we might call political partisanship without that charge being conclusively established.

Mr. Harold Davies: May I ask a question? It may be completely irrelevant because of my lack of knowledge of the Act. I can envisage a position where there might be redistribution, and it might be thought that the only way to solve the problem would be to take a part of one county and a part of another county to make a Parliamentary constituency. That is still possible under the original Act and I believe that it is possible under this Measure. But would the Attorney-General tell me whether that is possible, for instance, with regard to parts of Staffordshire and parts of Derbyshire?

The Attorney-General: I could answer that question if I were in order, but it has no relation to the Amendment. If I may be permitted to be out of order, under the Act as it stands—and it will remain when this Bill is passed—the Commission can recommend a constituency which consists of part of one county and part of another.

Mr. Snow: As I understand the Attorney-General, we now have it on

record that it would be appropriate to object to a county council's allegedly partisan proposals for boundary readjustment and that such objections would have to be established; but that, nevertheless, they would be considered. Having that assurance on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(ELECTORAL QUOTAS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: When the Second Reading debate took place, Clause 3 was dealt with in rather summary fashion by the Home Secretary. He dealt with it in a few lines in col. 231 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 11th February, 1958. It is true that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) dealt with the principle of electoral quota at greater length. Unfortunately, I was not given the opportunity to take part in the Second Reading debate, and, although my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering dealt with the point, I find myself at complete variance with him.
The argument that he then adduced was that on a consideration of the electoral quota it would be desirable to increase the number of hon. Members representing English constituencies. It is true that he said—and I agree with him fully on this point:
Therefore, I say that the discrepancy between Scotland and Wales, on the one hand, and England, on the other is too large."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1958; Vol. 412, c. 235.]
That, of course, is true, and the figures that he gave bear out his point. The English electoral quota at the moment is 56,564, the Scottish quota is 48,011 and the Welsh quota is 50,363. In those circumstances, he is putting it mildly when he says that the discrepancy is obviously very large.
The whole idea of the electoral quota was to obtain an approximation towards numerical equality. If we want to apply so far as we can the principle of numerical equality, my submission is that the number of hon. Members in this House should be reduced and not increased.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I am sorry to rise in this way, Mr. Diamond, but we are now considering Clause 3, which relates to the electoral quota. As far as I can see, it does not relate to the number of constituencies, but the first new Clause does.

Mr. Lipton: Further to that point of order. Whereas the first new Clause refers to English constituencies, it does not refer to Scottish and Welsh constituencies. To that extent, what I may have to say on the subject of the Scottish and Welsh constituencies on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," may be completely out of order on the new Clause. I do not wish my rights to be unnecessarily truncated if the submission of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering is accepted.

The Attorney-General: Further to that point of order. I submit, Mr. Diamond, that as the Clause contains nothing which has any effect whatever on the number of seats in Great Britain, whether in England, Scotland or Wales, any debate upon the number of seats there should be would be out of order in relation to the Clause.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Diamond): Can the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) develop his argument a little further?

Mr. Lipton: My hon. and learned Friend said that a consideration of the principles involved in Clause 3 led to his forming the opinion that the number of Members of the House should be increased.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member pursues that argument, he will be completely out of order.

Mr. Lipton: In that case, Mr. Diamond, I reserve such comments as I may be allowed to make until we reach the new Clause, when, apparently, according to the points made by the Attorney-General and by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering, these comments would be in order, subject, of course, to your ruling.

Mr. Skeffington: I have been a very great critic of what the Boundary Commission did on the last occasion by using what I have said is the unauthorised English quota. I dislike the Clause and

I realise that in future that criticism will no longer be valid. I regret it just as much.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(NUMBER OF CONSTITUENCIES IN ENGLAND.)

In the application of rule 1 of the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act (which states the number of constituencies for the several parts of the United Kingdom) England shall be treated as such a part with a number of constituencies not substantially greater or less than five hundred and thirty (instead of, as at present, Great Britain being treated as such a part with a number of constituencies not substantially greater or less than six hundred and thirteen); and that rule shall be amended accordingly.—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This new Clause raises the question not only of the discrepancy between the number of electors per constituency in England, in Scotland and in Wales, but also of the number of Members that there could conveniently be in this House. The present position is that the rules provide for a fixed number of Members for Northern Ireland, a minimum for Scotland and a minimum for Wales. There is no question about Northern Ireland. Scotland has the minimum exactly. Wales has the minimum and one more; and it may be that the provision that we have just passed about Monmouth will add another seat. Nevertheless, substantially Wales is on the minimum.
6.45 p.m.
England is dealt with in this way. Great Britain as a whole has to have a total not substantially greater or less than 613. What happened on the last occasion when the Boundary Commission made its Report was as follows. Having ascertained the position as regards Scotland and Wales, the Commission was left with a number of 506 for England. It applied the electoral quota as it understood it, and the result would have been 519 seats for England. The Commission, however, took the view that that was substantially greater than the number in the Bill and accordingly, in the result, its recommendations were for 511 seats.
I am not for the moment quarrelling with that. I merely say that it was a rather unsatisfactory result because, on the limited equality which the Commission would have considered advisable, it was only the number of seats being substantially greater than the total derived from the provisions of the Bill that prevented it from giving effect to that. It had to allot England fewer seats than it thought right.
When we come to actual figures—I produced them on Second Reading, and I shall not produce them at great length again—there is a distinct discrepancy. There is a reason for some discrepancy, but on the existing position, taking the electorate as it was when the Report was issued, the figures were 56,564 in England, 50,363 in Wales, and 48,011 in Scotland. Those understate the discrepancy a little because of the Rule 6 constituencies, the ones with exceptional geographical considerations. We all recognise that they are apt to be distinctly smaller than the average in electorate. Consequently, if we left them out of the picture, the discrepancy would not be so large. Nevertheless, it exists, and it is quite definite. It is larger between England and Scotland than as between England and Wales.

Sir G. Nicholson: What would be the average Scottish figure if the exceptional constituencies were left out?

Mr. Mitchison: I cannot give the answer. I could give a guess as to what I thought the exceptional considerations were, and over Scotland, if I took the seven crofting counties, I do not think I should be far wrong. It is much harder to calculate for Wales, because I am not sure to which of the counties Rule 6 would, in the opinion of the Commission, apply. No one, however, will deny that the discrepancy exists if we take the average, leaving out any reasonably assumed Rule 6 cases.

Sir G. Nicholson: Not so great.

Mr. Mitchison: Not so great, but distinct and definite. The question is whether we ought not to ask for some more seats in England. No one wants to attack the number of seats in Scotland or Wales; I certainly do not. I appreciate that the existence of the crofter county seats in Scotland, for instance, makes it a little

more difficult to try to reduce the number of Scottish seats and therefore to increase the average of non-crofting Scottish seats. It lends colour to a somewhat smaller electorate in neighbouring parts of Scotland, even though those parts are not Rule 6 cases. Still the discrepancy is there. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department can give us any more accurate figures than I have given, but I feel certain it will not be denied that the discrepancy exists and that it is distinct and recognisable. I suggest that there is no reason for it at present.
There is, moreover, another factor, namely, that the English population is growing much faster than the Scottish. I cannot give electoral figures, I do not think they are generally available, but the population figures show a much more rapid increase, and, indeed, it is what one would expect. There has been a general trend southwards for some time past, not merely of people who come to manage English affairs and then return to Scotland when they have finished, but of people who, for reasons of occupation or of choice, come south. I am not making any comment on it, and I cannot for the moment see any Scottish Members about, but even if they are not, I still make no comment. The position tends to be the same as regards Wales.
In those circumstances, we are dealing with a period that cannot be before November, 1964, and may go to November, 1969. Therefore, we ought to make an allowance not only for the increase that has occurred since the figures I have referred to, which are those used by the Commissioners in their November, 1954, Report, but also for the increase which is almost certain to continue until sometime between 1964 and 1969.
Though, of course, one can vary the figures, I suggest that what we have asked for in this proposed Clause is, from the English point of view, a moderate request. We have asked for 530. The figure at which the Boundary Commission jibbed, if I have it aright, was 519 and the increase would more than allow for that. Even so, when that has been done, owing to the way in which the Boundary Commissioners applied the quota arrangement, I doubt whether we would be up to the Scottish average.
It may be said that we ought not to add even nineteen extra Members to a House where many of us often feel that there is a considerable lack of accommodation already. This is not the moment to ask the Government to carry out recommendations of reports on that subject, but we used to have the Southern Irish in this House, and when they were here the number was 30 or 40 more than it is now. Though, of course, the building is not the same, the accommodation was meant to correspond, and I doubt whether an addition of this kind would seriously hinder the work we have to do here, or whether that is a good reason for accepting an English inferiority in numbers which seems to me in this case to go beyond a justifiable reason.
Therefore, the form of the proposed Clause is to substitute 530 as the figure for England, not substantially greater or less, instead of the Great Britain figure of 613. I do not think much turns on whether we do it that way, and I would not regard that as a matter of great importance, though it has always seemed to me simpler in the actual circumstances of the case to have a separate English figure. What is important is that we are asking for nineteen extra English Members on the substantial ground that the English representation is too unfair by comparison with the Scottish and Welsh figures.
Finally, I would not object to a certain advantage for Scotland and Wales, although I find it hard to give the reasons for that. I believe there are historical reasons one could give as regards Scotland and I have mentioned the point of the crofting counties. All I say at present is that this would still leave that advantage to Scottish and Welsh boroughs.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: My hon. and learned Friend has put forward an unanswerable argument for this proposed Clause. It seems to me that where we commence the inquiry by providing, as I understand the existing procedure does, for a minimum number of seats for Scotland and also for Wales, and then put a ceiling on the total representation, there is obviously a risk that England may become seriously under-represented. That risk is all the more serious when the movement of population is increasingly in the direction of England.
Speaking early in the discussion on this Clause, may I say that what would appear to be a relevant piece of information for the Committee to consider in this connection is the number of Rule 6 cases in England. For all I know there may be none, but it is a relevant factor how many of those cases, if any, there are in England, how many there are in Wales, and how the proportion of those cases between England and Wales compares with the proportion of population.
Representing an English constituency, I am greatly impressed by this discrepancy between 56,564 for England and 50,363 for Wales. It seems a very large discrepancy. As my hon. and learned Friend indicated, the figure of 48,011 for Scotland may not have the same relevance on this matter because of the influence exerted by the crofting constituencies, but surely that factor is far less important in Wales. I think that in considering this matter it is the discrepancy between the English figure and the Welsh figure that calls for the most searching examination.
This is not a matter on which I believe there could be a very strong difference of opinion in the Committee, because the objective which we all have is quite clear. We desire the fairest distribution of representation, bearing in mind that there will always be anomalies created by Rule 6 cases. On the other hand, we want to know more than I know at the moment about the operation of Rule 6 and we need a further explanation of the very striking discrepancies between the figure for England and the figure for Wales.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) that the discrepancy between the position in England and the position in Wales is probably not more marked than that between England and Scotland because of the application of Rule 6. My hon. Friend referred to the seven Scottish crofting constituencies. There are possibly three or four constituencies in Wales in that category, and having regard to the fact that the population and electorate of Wales are almost exactly half those of Scotland, the qualifying incidence of the crofting counties is similar in both countries.
May I turn to a more general point about the comparison between the quotas in the three countries? Some hon. Members seem to think that the differences in the three quotas are excessive, but, personally, I do not think they are. I recall that between the Act of 1885 and 1918 the country tolerated electorates which varied from a few hundreds in some of the small historic boroughs to 30,000 in Walthamstow. That situation was not put right in 1918.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) has repeatedly drawn the attention of the House to similar but not identical numerical anomalies between the wars and since. I do not think that we can avoid these anomalies, nor can we pare down the so-called quota discrepancies between the three countries much more than we have already done. The figure for England is rather over 56,000, that for Wales is rather over 50,000, and that for Scotland is about 48,000. I think that the relative identity of representation is rather good.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill, who is sitting next to me, suggests that the ratio was metaphysical.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn: Let us all join in. We cannot hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Roberts: I do not think the Scottish quota was unduly metaphysical.
I do not think we need worry unduly about the quotas. We have achieved a reasonable parity between the three countries in the figures which I have given, having regard to the very wide disparity in local conditions in the outlying parts of the community.
I hope that in considering the Amendment we shall not over-argue in favour of mathematical identity of quotas. This does not mean that I, as a Welsh representative, am in any way opposed to increasing the number of English representatives. I think that it can be done without injury to either the Scottish or the Welsh representation. It should proceed, however, less on the mathematical basis and more on the practical basis as related to the local difficulties in England, Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Pickthorn: I was not here on Second Reading, and I hope that it is in order now to refer to what would have

been in order then. I think that it is in order to do so on the Amendment.
The difficulty about the Amendment, with whichever prejudice we approach the subject—either prejudice from this side of the Committee or prejudice from the other side of the Committee—is quite clear. Most of us who are here now have taken a considerable interest in this matter on one or more previous occasions, and on each of those occasions, and certainly upon the last, it was quite plainly admitted that the situation as it then stood, or rather the distribution as it was then proposed, was in some respects intolerable and the proposal was then driven through.
It therefore becomes impossible to amend this Bill, which leaves those intolerabilities, so as to make it seem fair to both sides of the Committee. I think some gleam of hope was given by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts). The difficulty with which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was trying to deal was the difficulty of not increasing excessively the number of Members in the House and yet not being excessively unjust to England, a very odd, if not unique, ambition, the second part of it, if I may say so, but one with which I sympathise.
I believe that the hon. Member for Caernarvon showed how it could be done. He mentioned that it made no difference at all whether the average quota was 50,000 or 56,000. Very well; let us have the average quota for Scotland and Wales 56,000 and the average quota for England something not much more than 50,000, thus saving on Scotland and Wales enough seats to enable us to do justice to England.

Mr. Lipton: I will dispense with the preamble, which is already on record, and deal with what I think is the fundamental point, which has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He has slightly departed from what he said on Second Reading, because on that occasion he said
The discrepancy is, obviously, very large".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 234.]
I do not think he stands by that now, because tonight he said that the discrepancy is undesirable or greater than it should be.
As the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) said, it all depends what we take as our starting point. My learned Friend said that the representation for Scotland and Wales was more or less correct, and that the representation of England ought therefore to be increased. It is just as logical to take the view that Scotland and Wales are over-represented and that the number of hon. Members representing English constituencies does not need to be increased.
If, for example, at some time or other the Boundary Commission or such authority as may exist decided that the total number of Members should be 500, that would give an electoral quota of about 69,000 over the whole of Great Britain, and it would mean that there would be ninety-nine fewer English Members of Parliament, twenty-two fewer Scottish Members, and nine fewer Welsh Members. The Northern Ireland representation is already related to that quota, and would not change. Nobody can tell me that the work of the House could not be done just as effectively by 500 Members attending to their duties as it is at present by 630, of which 130 do not attend to their duties.
If we examine the situation in other Parliamentary assemblies, we find that whereas in France the average number of electors per representative is 49,000—which is too few from our point of view—in the United States of America the figure is 236,000 and in the German Federal Republic, 70,000. The German Federal Republic carries on its business with reasonable efficiency.
I know that the right hon and learned Gentleman is getting a little impatient and wants to take part in the discussion in order to give us the benefit of his views, but I must ask him to exercise his patience for a further few minutes.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member has no grounds for saying that. I was merely picking up some paper in order to take a note of what he is saying. He really ought to apologise.

Mr. Lipton: I apologise unreservedly. I mistook the interest he was taking in what I was saying for an impatience at what I was saying. In those circumstances, I unreservedly withdraw my

remark and hope that what I am saying is having some effect.
I suggest that we ought not immediately to come to the conclusion that the only solution of the problem is to increase the number of parliamentary representatives in this House. In the German Federal Republic, members find no difficulty in representing 70,000 electors each, and the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) carries out his duties as well as any other Member while representing about 80,000 electors. I have not noticed that by reason of the fact that he represents such a large electorate he is any less efficient or active than other hon. Members in the discharge of his duties.
I should like my hon. and learned Friend to think about what he is saying. I do not believe that it is necessary to increase the number of hon. Members in order to ensure the efficient carrying out of our Parliamentary duties. If we have to make any change it should be by way of reduction. I know that in the case of Scotland and Wales all kinds of geographical and historical considerations enter into the matter, but it is rather ridiculous to say that because there are some crofting counties in the north of Scotland the number of Members of Parliament representing English constituencies should be increased.

7.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: It might be to the convenience of the Committee if I said something about the Amendment now, and so help hon. Members to reach a conclusion. The hon. and learned Member based his argument upon the existence of a discrepancy between the electoral quotas of England, Wales and Scotland. Whether the hon. and learned Member's views are well founded, or whether the view of the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton)—who has said that we should not immediately come to the conclusion that there is only one solution of the problem—is well founded, I submit that although, technically, the proposed new Clause is within the scope of the Bill, it is not within the scope of its intentions.
In 1944 there was the Speaker's Conference, which was attended by representatives of all parties. That Conference favoured the acceptance of certain rules,


among which was Rule 6, referring to the total number of Members of Parliament, which said:
The total number of Members of the House of Commons for Great Britain shall remain substantially as at present, (i.e) 591, excluding University seats.
That figure was then incorporated in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944. It is important to bear in mind that the Conference seems to have reached the conclusion that for the proper conduct of the business of the House of Commons the target figure should be 591, not taking into account the university seats which then existed.

Mr. Mitchison: Including Northern Ireland.

The Attorney-General: Including Northern Ireland. It also recommended that there should be the following special provision for Scotland and Wales—which is Rule 7:
There shall be no reduction in the present number of Members of the House of Commons for Scotland or for Wales and Monmouthshire.
That is where we get the present statutory stipulation of not fewer than 71, 35 and 12 Members respectively. That recommendation was clearly accepted by the Socialist Party when it formed a Government, because it was embodied in Rule 1 of the 1944 Act, which was passed during the time of the Coalition Government, and remained until it was altered by the 1948 Act. The Committee will remember that at that time, contrary to the Boundary Commission's recommendation, 17 seats were added, bringing the figure up to its present level.
The new proposal is that there should be a further 19 seats, and if I understand it right the object is to narrow the discrepancy between the electorates of England and the electorates of Scotland and Wales respectively, so as to try to make the weight of an Englishman's vote correspond more nearly to the effect of a vote of a Scotsman in Scotland, a Welshman in Wales and a Northern Irishman in Northern Ireland. That discrepancy between the electorates originated in the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference, if not before.
Whatever may be the view of what ought to be done, and what is the right size of the House, it follows that if we accept the view that it should not be less

than 71 Scottish seats, 35 Welsh seats and 12 seats for Northern Ireland, and also the conclusion that the House should remain at more or less its present membership, we must accept a discrepancy between the electorates in the different parts of the United Kingdom.
This is not the place for making any further alteration in that respect. An attempt to correct the balance between the different parts of the United Kingdom should not be made by means of the addition of a Clause of this character, providing a particular solution, in a Bill of this character. I suggest that that certainly should not be done without careful consideration of the whole problem again by another Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Mitchison: I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but I wonder whether he could tell us one thing. The trouble seems to me to be that the discrepancy that existed then was smaller than the discrepancy that exists now. Can he give us any figures on that point?

The Attorney-General: I do not think I can; I do not think I have them in my possession. Nor can I answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) as to how many constituencies Rule 6 would apply, for the simple reason, as has been said before today, that the Boundary Commission does not give reasons in its Report for its conclusions. One can only speculate, and I do not think that speculation would be very helpful.
The point I am seeking to make is that the correction of the discrepancy between the different parts of the United Kingdom is a subject not for these Bills, but for consideration at another Speaker's Conference, when the time comes for such a conference. It may be—one does not know, and cannot predict—that there will be further shifts of population in one direction or another, but I am quite sure that we ought not to alter the balance between the respective parts of the United Kingdom without giving very careful consideration to the whole problem. One ought not lightly to depart from the accepted recommendations of a Speaker's Conference which have stood for so long.
May I add a further word? Various suggestions have been made. It was said, for instance, on Second Reading by the


right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that we might have the same quota for England as now exists for Scotland. I quote the right hon. Gentleman's words:
If we took the same quota for England as exists at the moment for Scotland, we should redress the balance and be able to feel that we were still preserving the Act of Union."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 262.]
Of course, we would in one respect, but the consequences of this would be that England alone would have 607 seats in a House with a total membership of 726. We ought not to provide for that eventuality, I submit, by adding a Clause of this character to a Bill of this character, and it is for these reasons that I advise the Committee not to add the Clause to the Bill.
I have intervened now because I felt that perhaps these considerations might enable the Committee to reach a fairly speedy conclusion on this matter. It has been an interesting discussion. It is quite obvious that it is not being conducted entirely on party lines, but that some difference of attitude seems to depend upon from which part of the United Kingdom one may come.

Mr. Skeffington: I do not wish to prolong the discussion unduly, but I think there are one or two things that need to be said, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General will give some further consideration to them.
I believe that if there were an offer of or suggestion for a Speaker's Conference, that would indeed be the best way of dealing with this point. Nevertheless, I do not think that the new Clause is out of keeping with the Bill. The Clause does not raise a matter of fundamental constitutional importance; it is merely an attempt to get some greater equality between the representation from different parts of the United Kingdom. This is merely an alteration of a comparatively minor character.
Before I develop the other points, I wish to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that I do not support his argument. I wondered why, when there is some unemployment already in the country as the result of the Government's policy, my hon. Friend should suggest that we should increase it still further by putting Members of Parliament out of work. Then, again, if my hon. Friend thinks that the number

of Members here could be reduced, I do not know what he would have thought about the composition of the House of Commons a hundred years ago, when there were 700 Members, but when the electorate of each constituency was a few hundred and the population of the country was much smaller.
I should have thought also, in reply to another point made by my hon. Friend, that a comparison between the responsibilities of British Members of Parliament and, with all respect to them, the responsibilities of Deputies in the West German Republic, was irrelevant. In addition to our responsibilities for the United Kingdom in this House, we also have responsibilities for the 60 million people in the Colonial Commonwealth who look to us. I think that, for all these reasons, there is no serious case for cutting down representation here.
I think it was the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation who said something the other day with which I agree. It was that when one looks at certain problems, one sometimes wishes that we had a Secretary of State for England to look after our interests. Certainly, I think in the matter of the great difference in the size of electorates between the English constituencies and the Welsh and Scottish constituencies, that sort of consideration arises. Why should an English Member have to represent so many more electors? One of the reasons why English Members have to represent a larger electorate is undoubtedly the use last time of the electoral quota which has now been authorised under this Bill for future redistributions. It is, incidentally, a tribute to those of us who believe that the Commission was, in fact, working upon an unauthorised quota that powers have been taken in this Bill to legalise the special quotas for different parts of the United Kingdom.
If one takes the number of constituencies which must be reserved to other parts of the United Kingdom, which on the last occasion totalled 107 for England and Wales and 12 for Northern Ireland, we are bound to get, unless there is some increase in English representation, a very much higher electorate for English constituencies. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) realised that the comparison was very much worse than


even he suggested. He quoted the British quota of 55,670 which, in fact, was not the quota used. Indeed, I do not know whether the figures of the electorates now are different, because we have not been given any figures so far in the debate, but in 1953 the English quota worked out at 57,000, and the difference in the representation is that the average for Scotland in 1953 worked out at 50,353, a difference of about 7,000. In the case of the Welsh seats in 1953, the average was 48,000 electors, as compared with an electorate of 57,000 for the English constituencies. I think it will be rather difficult to justify that magnitude of difference of 9,000 between constituencies in the two countries, and I would still hope that further consideration might be given to this point.
I think there are two further arguments in support of the Clause. In the first case, from 1801 to 1918, this House was composed of about 700 Members. It did fluctuate from time to time, and at one period it was slightly less and at another slightly higher. The proposal in the Clause would not mean any more seats than the House has had for nearly 100 years.
Secondly, it appears from the movement of the electorates and populations that the English electorates are going to increase. If so, this is the time to make some concession to prevent the considerable difference in the electorates—which in the case of the Welsh and English constituencies is nearly 10,000—from becoming even bigger. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will give some undertaking about this. If he cannot accept the Motion, he may indicate that some further consultation can take place.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Parker: The hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) and myself are the only two hon. Members present in the Chamber who were at the Speaker's Conference, and I should like to raise various points regarding that conference with the Attorney-General. When we discussed this subject in 1944 there was a basic assumption that the population would remain roughly the same, and that the proportion of the population as between England, Scotland and Wales would remain roughly the same. But that

has not been the case. There has been an increase in the population of the United Kingdom as a whole, and particularly in the population of England. That rise is going on steadily, so that the solution arrived at in 1944 is not relevant today and will become less relevant as time goes on.
I agree that in 1944 we decided it was right and reasonable that Wales and Scotland should be given a larger representation than the numbers justified. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) that there should be a continuing bias in favour of Wales and Scotland. The question is, how large should it be. I suggest that we should stick to the 1944 position and not differentiate further. That would be a reasonable solution. Let us keep the Welsh and Scottish figures as they were, but if we find, as is the case, that the population of England is increasing, there is a strong argument for increasing the representation and bringing it up to the same proportion as that decided in 1944.
I do not see why we cannot have a few extra Members in this House to represent English constituencies, if that would appear the right way to solve the difficulty. As has been said, there were times over a long period of history when the number of hon. Members was larger than it is today, and I do not think that a small increase, say to 650, or even another 10 or 20 more than that, would matter very much. We could have that number of Members without upsetting the arrangements of this House. I suggest that we go back to the 1944 position and add a number of extra English Members to keep the same sort of ratio from a population point of view.
If the population of England continues to increase, it might be necessary to examine the matter again; but I should think that in the long run the population of the United Kingdom will stabilise itself and there will not be need for a further drastic increase of Members. If in, say, a hundred years the number were unmanageable the matter might be examined again, but that problem is not likely to arise for a long time. I ask the Attorney-General to go back to the 1944 position and be prepared himself to bring forward some Amendment to enable the English representation to be


increased to bring it to the 1944 proportion. I do not think there is need for a Speaker's Conference on that point. We are merely suggesting that we stick to the 1944 position. I do not think there is any strong feeling in the Committee that we should move away from that position.

Mr. Mitchison: Originally I had no intention of inviting the Committee to come to a decision on this matter, but I am finding it increasingly difficult to resist the temptation put before me by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. This new Clause has been on the Order Paper for some time. This subject—including the disparity and the question of the growth of the population—was mentioned more than once during the Second Reading debate. I can understand the Government saying that they do not think this is the right time to deal with it, but I do not understand the Government refusing to equip themselves with the necessary information which hon. Members obviously are entitled to have in order to form an opinion on the subject. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "I should like another Speaker's Conference, if I am to deal with this at all, and for that reason I have not equipped myself with the information."

The Attorney-General: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not desire to misrepresent what I said. I did not say anything of the sort he is suggesting. I said that last time there was a Speaker's Conference on the matter, and that we should not make a change of this character in this Bill without the matter first being considered by another Speaker's Conference. It was not on the ground that I had not equipped myself with the necessary information, and the hon. Gentleman has no reason for making that allegation.

Mr. Mitchison: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that if I said, or if he understood me to say, that he said he had not equipped himself with sufficient information for the purpose, I withdraw it unreservedly. I had no intention of saying it. I said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for another Speaker's Conference and he also admitted, in the state of affairs which I have mentioned—the new Clause having been on the Order Paper for some days

and the whole matter having been discussed during the Second Reading debate—that he had not the obviously relevant information about it. I regard that as unfair to the Commission since that information must have been readily available at the Home Office and could well have been produced.
The point is, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), that the Speaker's Conference came to the conclusion, on the state of affairs existing at that time, as I admitted when moving the Motion, that there is a case, apart from the Rule 6 question, of there being some disparity in favour of Scotland and Wales. We admit that, but the point is that the disparity has grown and is still growing. I gave the figures so far as I could get them as at the date of the Report of the Boundary Commission. I added during the Second Reading debate, and I repeat again now, that since then the English population—I have not got the electoral figures—has been increasing twice as fast as the Scottish population. Clearly, the electoral position must reflect the same sort of change.
For those reasons there is no inconsistency whatever in saying now that on the principles agreed by the Speaker's Conference, and even on the proportion agreed, some figure or other ought to be allowed by way of an increased number of seats for England. There is no inconsistency about that. On the contrary, the inconsistency lies in the mouth of the Attorney-General who not only wants to go back on the conclusions of the Speaker's Conference, but also takes no account of the fact that since then the House has added an additional number of Members.
Clearly, the only conclusion I can draw from the Speaker's Conference is that it recognised the wisdom of some discrepancy and, further, that it gave attention to the matter and laid down minimum figures for Scotland and Wales which, unlike one of my hon. Friends, I would not wish to alter.
The right way to deal with the matter is to give some, not very large, English increases. The Government have always known that if they refused the necessary information it would be extraordinarily difficult to say what the right figure was. I should not be justified in asking the


Committee to come to a decision on the Clause, when the figure of the additional votes must so largely be guesswork. I am trying to resist the temptation to ask for a decision because of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply. I think I have succeeded. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(CONSTITUENCY RESOLU- TIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES.)

(1) A local authority may by resolution (hereinafter called a "constituency resolution") recommend that an alteration, to be specified in the constituency resolution, be made in the boundaries of a constituency, which or any part of which is in the area of the local authority.
(2) A constituency resolution shall be communicated by the local authority to the Secretary of State and by the Secretary of State to the appropriate Boundary Commission.
(3) On receiving notice of a constituency resolution a Boundary Commission shall consider and report to the Secretary of State whether or not they deem it advisable to make a report under subsection (3) of section two of the principal Act and, if they do deem it advisable to make such a report, they shall proceed to do so in accordance with the provisions of that section.
(4) A report made under the said subsection (3) and in accordance with the last foregoing subsection shall not be confined to the alteration recommended in the constituency resolution and may include such further or other alterations in relation to the constituency in question or to any other constituency or constituencies affected as may appear advisable to the Boundary Commission, whether with or without the alteration recommended in the constituency resolution or with any modification of that alteration.
(5) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any constituency resolution together with any report of a Boundary Commission stating that they do not deem it advisable to make any report on that constituency resolution under the said subsection (3) or, notwithstanding anything in subsection (5) of the said section two, any report made under the said subsection (3) and stating that no alteration is required to be made in respect of the part of the United Kingdom with which by reason of the constituency resolution the Commission are concerned.
(6) In this section the expression "local authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section one hundred and forty-four or, in relation to Scotland, by section one hundred and forty-five of the Local Government Act, 1948.
(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to derogate from the requirements of the said section two of the principal Act or to affect the generality of subsection (3) of that section.

(8) This section shall not apply to Northern Ireland or to any constituency in Great Britain, which appears to the appropriate Boundary Commission to be one to which rule 6 of the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act applies.—[Mr. Skeffington.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Skeffington: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause contains a new device designed to bring flexibility into distribution arrangements where the Commission either does not take any action about a change which occurred during the period between reviews or at a general review. I am all in favour of the Boundary Commission not being active. I have always been against having a permanent Boundary Commission because it will tend towards justifying its existence and unnecessarily interfering with boundaries. There is, however, a case where responsible opinion inside a constituency feels that there is an anomaly to be investigated and it would like to suggest a change to deal with it.
The purpose of the Clause is to make it possible for a local authority, as defined in Section 144 of the Local Government Act, 1948, or by Section 145 in relation to Scotland, to pass a resolution, which could then be forwarded to the Secretary of State. We suggest in the Clause that such a resolution should be called a "constituency resolution" and that it should recommend a change in the boundaries of the constituency when any part of it is in the area of the local authority.
It is suggested that such a resolution should be sent to the Secretary of State, who would then send it to the appropriate Boundary Commission. When the Commission receives the constituency resolution it shall consider it and make a report on its proposals to the Secretary of State, saying that it feels there is a case for a change, or that it does not recommend the change, or that it proposes other changes to deal with that and other constituencies.
7.45 p.m.
It has been suggested that this might start a chain reaction of changes very dangerous to other constituencies. There is something in that point, but equally the procedure could act as a safeguard against irresponsible resolutions being passed, because the local authority would know that it was not a matter of the


Commission accepting the resolution but of considering the whole circumstances of the anomaly in the area in question and of making to the Home Secretary recommendations which were not necessarily in the resolution. The local authority would be careful and would be likely to act only in cases where it could make a fair and sensible suggestion. The Secretary of State would lay before Parliament any constituency resolution, together with any report of a Boundary Commission.
There are at least two comparable powers given to groups of individuals or local authorities and where they can ask for an inquiry. There is a provision in the London Government Act that a Metropolitan Borough or a group of responsible people or electors can suggest that there is a prima facie case for an inquiry for an alteration to ward boundaries. They can send to the Secretary of State proposals, and if he feels that a case has been made out he can order an inquiry, at which the group of electors or the borough council or both can put forward proposals and be examined about them.
This procedure has not been used extensively, but it has been useful on some occasions. A re-warding of the Borough of Camberwell was carried out in 1952 as a result of a petition to the Home Secretary from a group of electors suggesting the need for changes in the wards which had existed in their then state for more than fifty years. There had been a considerable movement of population in the intervening period. In due course, a special commissioner was appointed to hold the inquiry and made a report. The result was incorporated in an order by the Secretary of State, and new and better boundaries were created.
There is also provision in respect of parish councils whereby a group of electors can ask for an inquiry in relation to boundaries. Although I said that this was a new device it has, in fact, been used in the case of local government boundaries. It is within the experience of hon. Members that anomalies occur from time to time in constituencies. It would seem to be fair for a local authority to have the right to bring anomalies to the attention of the Secretary of State direct. I can quite imagine that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) would like to present a petition

about his own constituency. It does not follow by any means that if a local authority passes a constituency resolution that there would be any change. It would simply mean that attention has been drawn to the difficulties in that constituency. The addition of this Clause would give a responsible local authority the opportunity to present to the Secretary of State in a direct and proper manner problems affecting the Parliamentary constituency with which it was concerned.
I do not believe that local authorities would use this power irresponsibly. There is the sanction that the Boundary Commission need not consider such a proposal and would suggest other proposals. The very fact that some avenue of appeal was open to responsible local opinion would introduce some flexibility into our system of redistribution. Generally speaking, if one can get an agreed change—because the resolution would have to be passed by a majority of the electors in the constituency, probably following some sort of local activity—put to the Secretary of State, it is very much better than having imposed on a locality a decision of other people, however eminent and fair they may be. A change that emanates from those in the area is much more desirable and often more satisfactory than one that is imposed from without. I hope, therefore, that the Committee and the Government will give serious consideration to this proposal.

Mr. Mitchison: I rise only to ask the Government to try to be a little more helpful about this than they have been about previous propositions put to them. They have combined immobility and infallibility to a degree that is rare even for a Government towards the end of their existence. There is a real point of substance here, and I hope that the Government will assist the Committee by making some positive proposals for meeting it.
Let me explain the point. It is that we are legislating for a period of from ten to fifteen years from the time of the last Report; that is to say, 1964 to 1969. Presumably, we shall go on in that sort of way. I am not in the least objecting to that; on the contrary, I welcome it. The disturbance that these changes make, not only to those of us who are engaged in parliamentary work but to ordinary


people all over the country, is quite considerable. I am sure that after the last Boundary Commission Report, and its results, we all felt that we did not want that to happen too often.
There is another side to it, however. Some of us, like the Fat Boy—I think it was he—are "swelling wisibly," and go on swelling, and swelling until things reach a difficult stage where we are asked to represent an inordinate number of electors—to take one obvious point. Equally, there can be difficulties the other way. Nowadays, there can be changes in the disposition of population owing to the movement of industry, and so on, that make representational changes worth consideration. I say no more than that.
This point was put to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary during the Second Reading debate. His reply was that it could be done under Section 2 (3) of the principal Act, and there is no doubt that in that subsection there is power for the Boundary Commission to make an interim report. In fact, that power has been exercised, but exercised only for quite minor boundary changes.
The difficulty now is that we are appointing a Boundary Commission, with a judicial deputy chairman, to act over quite a long period, and nobody knows how to get the Commission to take action where it may be required. That question was asked of the right hon. Gentleman, and we never had an answer. I do not say that it is an easy question to answer. It is difficult.
What is proposed in this new Clause is that local authorities should do it, and I see at once that there are objections to that. It is only too easy to think of objections. For instance, in my own constituency I have seven local authorities. Some of them are a bit on the small side, and we do not know what may happen to them in these days. Nevertheless, by this new Clause, any of them would have the power to start the ball rolling.
One could think of doing it by basing the power to propose on a given number of electors. That, too, presents difficulties. It makes it rather easier to organise what might be a factious objection or petition. It could be done, perhaps, automatically—that, too, we shall have to consider in due course. I hope that

the Government will be able to provide some suggestion as to what should be done if things approach the intolerable—let us put it that way—during the ten to fifteen years between these Reports.
This new Clause is very carefully worded. It does not oblige the Commission to make a report under the Act and, of course, if it makes a report under the Act, it can make a nil report, and say that nothing needs to be done. All that happens is that—

Mr. Renton: I am anxious to understand the new Clause. I take it that the hon. and learned Gentleman's words must be taken very literally when he says that the Commission can say that "nothing needs to be done." Does it not mean that the Commission must, in fact, show cause why it does not intend to hold an interim review on the lines indicated in the application?

Mr. Mitchison: I am sorry that I did not, in the nature of the case, take a note of my exact words, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman looks at the new Clause he will see that it provides for the constituency resolution to go to the Home Secretary, and for the Home Secretary to send it to the Boundary Commission. What the Commission then has to decide is whether or not to make a report under the Act. It has to report to the Home Secretary whether it is to make a statutory report. I hope that I have made myself clear, because it is rather difficult to avoid using the same word twice, and it is used twice in the new Clause.
The Boundary Commission, therefore, is not obliged to make a statutory report which itself might be a nil report. It is merely obliged to consider whether or not it should look into the matter and report. It is about the minimum obligation that one could put on anybody. It is really no more than pulling the coat of the Commission, as it were, and reminding it that there is a certain place which it might perhaps look at.
I agree that it is quite easy to pick holes in this sort of proposal. One can say that a local authority might be captious and it might do this too easily. In my own constituency, as I say, there are several local authorities. One very small local authority might do it, yet might not represent a lot of public opinion or anything else.


8.0 p.m.
All that is true, but on the other hand, if we do not do it at all, look at the position. The Boundary Commission is there for a period of ten to fifteen years. The deputy-chairman, with great respect to Mr. Speaker—it is well recognised that he cannot do much of this sort of thing—is a High Court judge He is in office notionally. He is the deputy-chairman, but it is too much to suppose that he is going into these electoral questions continually or even at frequent intervals; there is nobody to stir him up, and there is no duty on the other members of the Boundary Commission to look into the matter.
While I feel that a provision of this sort might not be used often, while I feel that it is extraordinarily easy to pick holes in any sort of provision that is suggested, I still feel that it is rather dangerous and foolish to leave matters entirely to chance—because that is what it seems to me to come to—for so long a period as ten to fifteen years. The net result of that, without moving the Boundary Commission in the interval, may be that the pack of troubles one has to pick up at the end of the ten to fifteen years would be very much larger than they would be if they had been dealt with at the time.
May I add one other point. I understand, as I am sure my hon. Friends do—and I expect every hon. Member understands—that this is hardly ever a case of a single constituency. Other constituencies may very well be affected, too, and for that reason I am very anxious not to do more than just tug the coat of the Commissioners and remind them that there is something that might be looked into. Within those limitations, I suggest that this new Clause provides a workable means of giving the tug, that it does not do and does not pretend to do more than that. If the Government do not like it, let them tell us some other way of reminding the Boundary Commission of the real things that need attention.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I support this proposed new Clause to which I added my name. I did so because it seems to me to raise an important matter of principle. The matter of principle to which I attach importance is that the local authorities should have the right to make representations to the

Boundary Commission. I do not put it any higher or any lower than that.
I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to bear in mind that there is a principle of historic importance involved in this new Clause. Parliament has existed for 600 or 700 years, and historically, I am sure the Minister will agree, representation in this House is based on local boundaries. When a Royal Commission is read in the House of Peers we hear the traditional and age-old recital, whereby the Royal Assent is given to Bills and reference is made to burgesses, knights of the shires, citizens and so on. It reminds us always that representation in this place is based on local boundaries. Local authorities are, therefore, interested in the basis on which representation is made, whether it is representation in the shires or in the boroughs.
It seems to me that apart from all other considerations—and I endorse everything that has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington)—on the principle that we have moved into a sphere in which the regulation of boundaries is to be decided by a Boundary Commission, the definition and alteration of boundaries and the constitution of constituency areas should be regarded as a matter in which local authorities—the lineal descendants of the ancient shires and boroughs—are entitled to take an interest and, therefore, are entitled to make representations to the Boundary Commission. What the Boundary Commission may do about it when such representation is received is a different matter. That depends upon the instructions which Parliament gives to the Boundary Commission.
I hope the Minister will accept this new Clause in order to enshrine in our constitutional arrangements what seems to me to be a fundamental principle of historical importance, that local authorities should be entitled to make representations. It was always a matter of interest to them, even when they were rotten boroughs, like Old Sarum, also when county authorities like Cornwall or Devon were intensely populated compared with the modern industrial areas, at times when


historically they were entitled to far greater recommendation than the more populous counties or shires. It was a matter of concern to them whether they lost their historic representation.
I do not dissent from the proposition, which is now accepted on both sides of the Committee as being almost axiomatic, that representation should be based on numbers—numerical representation. I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with his great sense of history, will agree with me that local considerations of historical significance also have a part to play, and I support this new Clause because I hope that in passing this Bill we shall not drift into a position in which we become so benumbed with mere arithmetic propositions that we ignore and depart entirely from the historical associations from which this Parliament is descended. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to write into this Bill that local authorities should be entitled to make representations to the Boundary Commission with regard either to the size of the area or to how the boundaries should be drawn.
The whole subject of local government is in the melting pot, and particularly so in view of the present Bill on the subject which is now being considered in detail by a Standing Committee. But whatever may be the pattern of local government organisation in the future, whatever may be appropriate for the administration of local government as such, that should not detract from the inherent and traditional right of any local authority, whether a county council or a borough council, a rural council or even a parish council, to make representations to this Boundary Commission, with suggestions derived from their own local knowledge and experience of how the boundaries should be drawn.
On that broad basic principle, I support this proposed new Clause and I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. Renton: I am sure that we would all agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) when he says that local authorities should have the right to make representations to the Boundary Commission, especially with regard to the need for the holding of an interim review.
As the background to this discussion there are, I think, three other things on which we can all agree, first, that it is a good thing that general reviews will be rather less frequent than under the old Act; secondly, that it is important that interim reviews should be held where necessary; and thirdly, that we do not want interim reviews to be too frequent or too extensive, for the reasons which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) put forward on 15th December, 1954, when, after complaining that a considerable number of interim reviews had taken place in Kent, he used these rather powerful words:
It is quite unjustifiable to suggest that this sort of change is either necessary or achieves any useful democratic purpose. In the meantime, the individuals affected do not know who their Member of Parliament is, because there have been so many changes. We really must put a stop to that kind of nonsense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1828.]
I therefore assume, in favour of the hon. Gentleman, that the last thing he would wish as a result of this Clause is that there should be unnecessary interim reviews.
As he has pointed out, and as I shall emphasise in one particular, local authorities, like any other individual, already have power to make representations to the Boundary Commission, and the Boundary Commission, under Section 2 (3) of the 1949 Act, has power to
from time to time submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the area comprised in any particular constituency or constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned, showing the constituencies into which they recommend that that area should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in the said Second Schedule.
That is the power of interim review.
That being the present position what we have to consider is, what does the Clause really add to it? It does not add to the power to make representations to the Boundary Commission. It does not add any power to the Boundary Commission to make representation to the Secretary of State. All that it does, so far as I can see, is that when a local authority passes a resolution and makes a recommendation to the Boundary Commission the Clause will require the Boundary Commission to show cause why it will not hold the review if it decides not to do so; and then, of course, the


matter is forwarded by the Commission to the Secretary of State, who can be required to lay before Parliament a report from the Boundary Commission as to why it decides not to hold a review.
That is the main effect. I shall be very glad to be corrected if I am wrong, as, perhaps, I may be, because this is a long new Clause which requires a lot of study. If I may say so, it has been most thoughtfully worked out, to try to cover the situation which hon. Members opposite have in mind. However, if that is all that this Clause adds to the present position, what we have to consider is whether it is really necessary to go through a rather elaborate procedure like that? I hope I shall not be considered to be provocative—although the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) was inviting me to be as provocative as possible—if I say that I think that it would be rather over zealous to impose that procedure upon the opportunities which already exist.
8.15 p.m.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering said very fairly indeed that if there were a case for revision of a single constituency the matter would hardly ever end there. Of course, I would agree with him, and the Clause recognises that. We might very well find that, owing to all the encouragement given by this new Clause to local authorities to pass such resolutions, and the feeling on the part of the Boundary Commission that it had to lean over backwards to do all it can do to consider the views of local authorities and, perhaps, to avoid having to make reports showing cause why it would not recommend alterations, we should be led into just that difficulty which in 1954 the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington deplored—the difficulty caused by too many interim reviews.
If we are extending the period between general reviews, there might of necessity—perhaps, according to circumstances—have to be rather more interim reviews. If the circumstances dictate that I should think it is hardly necessary for us to have a procedure of the kind suggested by the Clause.
Just suppose, however, that we accepted the principle and the spirit of this proposal, the question is, could we accept the Clause itself? There is at

least one point in the drafting which, I am afraid, would vitiate it completely from our point of view, and that is subsection (8), which says:
This section shall not apply to Northern Ireland or to any constituency in Great Britain, which appears to the appropriate Boundary Commission to be one to which rule 6 of the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act applies.
An obscurity arises there, because although the decision is left with the Boundary Commission, one wonders, naturally, whether the Boundary Commission is expected to get out a list of those constituencies in which the local authorities would not be allowed to make recommendations under this Clause. If the Boundary Commission were to get out such a list I have a horrible feeling that it might arouse a certain amount of controversy in the minds of members of such local authorities. That certainly would be a matter to which we should have to attend.
One is very hesitant to mention Northern Ireland on an occasion like this when we have been discussing broad principles, but this Clause expressly excludes Northern Ireland, and although the number of seats for Northern Ireland is at present fixed in the Second Schedule as twelve, it might very well be thought by a local authority in Northern Ireland that it should have at least as good rights as local authorities anywhere else.
However, as I say, that is a drafting matter.
I would say to the hon. and learned Member that we do consider these as House of Commons matters. We have considered all the Amendments most carefully. The Home Secretary has considered the matter personally and in very great detail. If we felt that this Clause or any of the others would be likely to facilitate the work of the Boundary Commission, or to grant rights to local authorities or individuals which ought to be granted, then we should most certainly have conceded the Clause.
For the reasons I have given, we do not feel that we can accept the Clause. As I say, our main reason is that we do not think that it adds to the opportunities which already exist and that we feel that it would unnecessarily introduce a somewhat cumbersome procedure.

Mr. Mitchison: I agree that this is not an easy matter, but the Commission is to consist, besides Mr. Speaker, of the deputy-chairman and two members, one of whom is to be appointed by the hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend. At least, that is how I read it. It says:
appointed by the Secretary of State
and I think that must mean the Home Secretary in that context. I am thinking of England and Wales for the moment.
Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider it the duty of the Home Office appointee on that Boundary Commission to keep an eye on the constituency position over the country, or, if not, would he regard it as the duty of the deputy-chairman, the High Court judge? It would help me a great deal—I am speaking personally—if I knew that the Home Secretary took the view that it was the responsibility of the Home Office appointee to keep an eye on the constituency position and to let the Boundary Commission know from time to time that there was a possibility that it ought to think of something or other. I do not see how, in practice, the High Court judge can do that. That is the point.

Mr. Renton: I would certainly agree that the Home Office appointee would have such a duty, but not for the reason that he was the Home Office appointee. I should have thought that the members of the Boundary Commission, having been appointed to fulfil statutory duties, would be individually and collectively responsible for seeing that they performed those duties. It will be their duty to scrutinise the population figures as produced by the Registrar-General, who will be an assessor, and to consider all representations made to them from time to time, and, generally, to keep their ears to the ground, in order that they may properly perform their statutory functions. I must stress, however, that I would not agree that the duty of a Home Office appointee would arise merely because he was a Home Office appointee, but would arise for the reasons I have given.

Mr. Mitchison: It comes to this, does it not, that the Home Secretary of the day takes no questionable responsibility, if the hon. and learned Gentleman knows what I mean, for the action or inaction

of his appointee on the Boundary Commission? Therefore, so far as I can see, there is no Parliamentary responsibility. Because the Boundary Commission has power to make these interim reviews, it seems to be under the obligation to do so. I think that is the position.
I hope that the Government will consider the question. I agree that it is a difficult question and that, in practice, cases may not be very frequent. I agree, above all, that it is most inadvisable to have these interim reviews too often, but I am a little uneasy about this long period with nobody taking the responsibility for attending to what might be quite an abnormal growth of population, or something of that sort, in a constituency during the period.

Mr. Renton: Let us be a little realistic about the matter. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted "Pickwick Papers" and the Fat Boy. He said, "The Fat Boy is swelling wisibly." There is a further quotation about the Fat Boy. It is, "The Fat Boy has gone to sleep again." No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman remembers that. I think that if the hon. Member of Parliament who represents the Fat Boy keeps awake, the matter will right itself very quickly indeed.

Mr. Skeffington: I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his courteous and patient reply, although, naturally, I found his rejoinder very disappointing. To some extent, I thought that his argument about frequent reviews and the quotation of my speech were not quite relevant, because the cases in Kent which I mentioned were not the results of interim reviews but the results of comprehensive reviews which were authorised by different Acts.
One case I had in mind was a place which, before 1945, was in one constituency, which was then placed by the 1944 review in another, then altered by the 1948 Act to another, and altered still further by the 1953 review. These were not interim reviews but the main general reviews, and it was that about which I was complaining. I do not quarrel with the general proposition that, in general, one does not want frequent reviews. The cases I mentioned were unnecessary changes as a result of the comprehensive reviews carried out by the various Commissions.
The real point at issue, and the point on which the hon. and learned Gentleman has not satisfied me, is that the Clause gives the right to a local authority to initiate a proposal direct to the Secretary of State. A local authority has not that right under the existing law or under the proposed changes in the Bill. That is very important. I do not think it is right to say that because a local authority can get in touch with the Boundary Commission, the power given to it under the Clause would add nothing. Getting in touch with the Boundary Commission may mean a lot or nothing.
Some of us and some local authorities had very unfortunate experiences in trying to get in touch with the Boundary Commission during the last review. One would not necessarily suppose, of course, that the difficulties which then arose would arise in future. A great many reviews were taking place, and the Boundary Commission was no doubt very considerably overworked. But representations were made by local authorities, and there was no indication that any attention at all had been paid to their proposals. That was particularly the case when no inquiries were held. As the Committee will be aware, there were only seven inquiries for the whole of England. It is, therefore, a rather poor bone to offer the local authorities to say that they can get in touch with the Boundary Commission. No doubt they will get their representations acknowledged, but there is no guarantee of anything more.
A representation to the Secretary of State is worth very much more. He is bound by constitutional practice as well as, I am sure, by general desire and courtesy to make a reply. Furthermore, he can be questioned in the House. The Boundary Commission cannot be questioned in the House. It may be right that it should not. Therefore, the really fundamental additional power which the provisions in the new Clause give is a right of direct representation to the Secretary of State. With respect, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman met that point.
8.30 p.m.
If Rule 6 is the difficulty I am quite prepared to drop it. It is a very minor point indeed. I realise that it might be difficult legally. It was included in the Clause because, obviously, where there

are special geographical considerations, one would not want to prejudice the electors there. I do not, in fact, think that representations would be made; any area which was very much over-represented, in the sense of its population being small, would have little desire to change. Such areas are usually only too glad to hang on to the representation they have. However, I am very willing, and I am sure that my supporters also would be willing to drop it. For the sake of peace and quiet—no doubt, unusual in this context—I should be glad also to embrace Northern Ireland, if that would help.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will reply to the main point I have made about the right of direct access to the Secretary of State. If he cannot concede the principle of the Clause, will he give some undertaking that the matter might be reviewed at a later stage? Rather than have nothing, I and my hon. Friends would be content with, at least, the right to present to the Home Office a case for a prima facie inquiry. If it went no farther than that, I think that it would be better than nothing. But without some powers of this kind, we shall be left with no responsible body being able to make direct representation to the Secretary of State. I regard that as a lacuna which should be filled.

Mr. Renton: I am glad that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has raised this further point. During our discussion, the matter has really been fined down to the question of what parliamentary responsibility there is. The hon. Gentleman is contriving a procedure which, he hopes, will of certainty engage the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Earlier, the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) asked a question which corresponded broadly with that. He asked what duty there was on the part of members of the Boundary Commission to keep the state of constituencies under review so as to see whether any particular interim review was needed.
The first answer to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. and learned Gentleman is that the Act of 1949 begins, apart from the Short Title and Preamble, with these words:
For the purpose of the continuous review of the distribution of seats at parliamentary elections, there shall be four permanent Boundary Commissions.


Those words place upon the Boundary Commission, I suggest, the duty of continuous review, because that is the purpose of their existence.
As regards the position of the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend has said that, although he has no right whatever to interfere with the work of the Boundary Commissions or to dictate to them how they shall do their work, he is quite prepared to pass to the appropriate Boundary Commission any representations which he may receive from, for example, any Member of Parliament or any local authority. A Question can always be put to the Secretary of State as to whether he has forwarded such representation. If that is not coming very close indeed to engaging parliamentary responsibility for the work of the Boundary Commission, I do not know what is.

Question put and negatived.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss with the next new Clause the first Amendment to the Schedule, in page 5, line 2.

New Clause.—(DELAY IN OPERATION OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL.)

An Order in Council made under the principal Act shall not come into force until the expiration of a period of six months beginning with the date of the making of the Order.—[Mr. Mitchison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
This Clause deals with a very short point, and I hope that the Government will accept it. I have no ground for supposing that they will, and some ground for supposing that they will never accept anything. But, none the less, let us hope. I see the hon. and learned Gentleman looking a little puzzled. The ground to which I refer is previous experience today. So far, they have accepted nothing.
At the end of the proceedings the operative instrument under the principal Act is an Order in Council and, as far as I am aware, it operates immediately. When we had the last review and the last heated discussion in the House about the Order in Council which emerged from

that review, the final results came into operation much too soon to be convenient before a General Election. I cannot believe that that is to anybody's advantage. Not merely the electors, whose political connections and political activities may be abruptly transferred from somewhere they know to somewhere they do not know, but also the officials who have to deal with this matter from the electoral point of view, and, indeed, everybody concerned, must deplore a short interval between the Orders in Council and a General Election.
I see no practical means of avoiding the difficulty except by allowing an interval between the time when the Orders are made and the time when they come into operation. I am sure that the Government are well aware of this practical difficulty and I cannot believe that they want it to continue. They have not put an Amendment down to meet the point, but no doubt they have read the new Clause. In those circumstances, I earnestly hope that they will accept it.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has moved the Motion most persuasively. We all recognise the difficulties which arise from too short notice after an Order has been presented for the division of an area into constituencies. On the other hand, there is a contrary danger. It would be possible for too long to elapse before an Election took place, because if the Commission completes a review in the early life-time of a Parliament we shall have a considerable movement of population in the period before the next Election takes place. One has to strike a balance.
I suggest to the Committee that the mere fact that we are increasing the period between reviews will give the Boundary Commission considerably more latitude as to the time it chooses for submitting a report. The Commission itself should be able to select the time in such a way that the Orders can be made without leaving too much time to elapse before the next General Election, while within the ambit of the period within which a review can be made—between ten and fifteen years. That time should not be too long, on the one hand, and should not be too short, on the other hand.

Mr. Mitchison: Perhaps I moved the Motion too shortly. I do not think that the hon. Member understands its purport. The point is that these Orders do not come into operation until a General Election. The only point is to provide for the case when there is less than six months between the Order and the General Election.

Mr. Macpherson: I was coming to that point. The Order in Council giving effect to a Commission's recommendations on the division of any area into constituencies may come into force on such date as is specified in the Order. That provision is in Section 3 (6) of the 1949 Act. As the hon. and learned Member has said, that Order does not effect any change in constituencies until the next General Election, so that any by-election would be conducted under the old rules, as things are at present. If we made a definite rule that the new Order would not come into effect until six months, at least, after it was published, should an Election take place in the intervening period, it would have to take place on the old register.
I put it to the hon. and learned Member that if that were done it would surely create grave political prejudice. Can he imagine what would be said about the Government party at an Election held in those circumstances? It would be said that they were hurrying to the country before the new register came into force.

Mr. Mitchison: I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question about what would be said. Nothing worse would be likely to be said than was said about the Conservatives getting the Rochdale by-election on the old register, but is this the point? Surely, the point is that if we allow a shorter interval than six months in this type of case we will make the whole thing impossible and unworkable for everybody. I am not convinced by anything that I have heard so far.

Mr. Macpherson: I should have thought that the mere case of the Rochdale by-election which the hon. and learned Member has quoted proves the point that grave political prejudice would undoubtedly be created.
We might well have a snap Election in the period. The Government might

he defeated and have to go to the country, or they might decide to have a General Election because they conceived that it was in the national interest to have one. But, surely, the effect of an Order of this kind would be almost to put a complete ban on General Elections taking place until six months had elapsed, no matter what the conditions were. I suggest that this ought to be left to circumstances and that we should not tie this matter down.
We recognise, of course, that serious difficulties are involved if it so happens that the time that elapses between the Order and the General Election is short. In the last case, four to five months elapsed. Perhaps that was not long enough. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Kettering is right and that it would be more convenient to have a longer period, but I suggest to the Committee that this is not a suitable provision to write into the Bill.
If we tie this arrangement down, all that will really happen will be that we shall virtually be putting a ban on the holding of a General Election, whatever the circumstances, until six months after the Order has been made. I do not think that that necessarily would be to the advantage of the country as a whole. Therefore, much as we should like to accept it, after the hon. and learned Member has tried so hard and moved so many Amendments with such grace, I fear that we cannot accept the new Clause.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The most interesting part of the Joint Under-Secretary of State's speech was the recognition that the dating of the Rochdale by-election was a bit of sharp practice.

Mr. Macpherson: The right hon. Gentleman must allow me to say that I admitted no such thing, although I acknowledge the clamour that arose from the other side about it.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do a thing that I find very difficult to do, and that is to read his own speech in HANSARD tomorrow.
I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's answer on this matter. Every time one of these Orders is made it involves the shifting of the electoral


position of a number of electors. If it is a substantial Order it involves the reorganisation of the machinery inside the constituencies by all the political parties involved. Some people have to get into a quite new orientation with regard to their political friends in other parts of the new constituency, which takes some time, and they find themselves cut off from people with whom they were formerly associated. In 1950, in the general review that brought up to date constituencies that had existed since 1918, these changes were very considerable, and there had been a substantial movement of population which added to the difficulty.
I suggest that six months is not long enough for that process, even when only one Order dealing with, perhaps, two or three constituencies is involved. I cannot think that this problem is involved with the date for holding a General Election. I am thinking now about the conditions created when an interim Order is made, possibly owing to an adjustment of local Government boundaries, which I think has been the cause of all the interim Orders up to date. Any Government that contemplated having a General Election immediately after an interval of ten or fifteen years would be very blameworthy if they held it within six months of the Orders being made.
This is a sensible Amendment in view of our general knowledge of the difficulties that are created inside a constituency when an interim Order is made. There may be difficulties about the register. It will all depend on the time of the year whether the register that is in print is applicable to the new constituencies that have been created, not merely with regard to the constituency as a whole, but with regard to wards or parishes within the constituency.
This Clause ought to have serious consideration, because those of us who every now and then have to engage in an Election know the difficulties that are created if we have a register which was not designed for the constituency which is now the subject of an election contest.

The Attorney-General: I am sorry that I did not hear the introductory remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) in introducing the new Clause and I apologise to him.

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) concerning the difficulties that are likely to ensue to the electors of an area from a change of the electoral boundaries. I have had experience of it myself. At one time, as Member for a county constituency, I had the honour of representing part of the Borough of Northampton, which was formerly represented by my father. It was a highly inconvenient arrangement. The electors within the borough who objected to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) could not understand why they did not have the opportunity to record their votes against him. I could not explain it to them either. I was much relieved when the boundaries were adjusted and the electors were accorded that facility. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel that we do not fully appreciate all these difficulties.
The interim Orders to which the right hon. Gentleman referred do not take effect until the next General Election. Therefore, one is in the position that the Clause would affect the situation only at a General Election. While I think that any Government should have great regard so far as it can to the situation, it depends in large degree upon the Boundary Commission, which ought also to have great regard to the situation so far as it can be foreseen. Both the Government and the Boundary Commission should have great regard to trying to avoid any such changes with a General Election imminent.
While I appreciate all that the right hon. Gentleman has said, the difficulty is that although six months' notice may be given, it may so happen that the General Election takes place immediately on the expiration of the six months or, possibly, before the six months has expired. One cannot tell how many Orders would fall to be made—it depends on the work of the Boundary Commission and may depend on the work done under the Local Government Bill—towards the end of the life of a particular Parliament. That being so, there might well be a situation, which would be highly unsatisfactory, whether it was open to party political criticism or not, of a General Election being fought with a large number of constituencies remaining unaltered when, according to the Report of the Boundary


Commission, accepted, perhaps, by the Government and by this House, those constituencies should have been altered to secure a fair representation.
Having regard to the circumstances, we cannot accept the Amendment. We feel, however, that regard must be paid, by whatever Government there may be and by the three Commissions, to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has urged concerning the necessity of giving an adequate opportunity for adjustment by those affected by these changes.

Mr. Mitchison: That will not do. On the last occasion, the Orders went through in December, 1954, all at more or less the same time, and the General Election was on 26th May, 1955.

Mr. Ede: The day between the Derby and the Oaks.

Mr. Mitchison: It was the day between the Derby and the Oaks, my right hon. Friend tells me. That may be, but it was within less than six months. They were changes that made things extraordinarily difficult for people.
I am well aware that the Government, especially nowadays, never know when the next crisis is coming. There was Suez. There was the foreign exchange crisis and rescuing the £. I do not know what we may have to rescue next time. The Rent Act caused a bit of a crisis too. We never know what there will be by way of crises. We live in lively times and they get livelier and livelier from the crisis point of view the longer the Goverment stay in office.
All that is profoundly true, but at the end of the day what is the right thing to do? Is it really better to have a General Election on top of changes of this kind, or is it better to continue on the old register and do it that way? I believe the Government capable of any iniquity, but I really do not think they would so organise a General Election as to work it on the old register deliberately They know their own minds and their own virtues and vices better than I do. It occurred to them; it did not occur to me. They know, and perhaps they really are capable of so arranging matters that if this Clause is accepted the whole of a General Election can be done à la Rochdale on the outgoing register.
Perhaps they think they had better keep on the safe side and risk all the inconvenience of a very short interval between the Order in Council and the General Election; risk all the inconvenience to the electorate, to the officials, to everybody else concerned, in order at all costs to remove this insistent temptation to work the whole of the General Election on an out-of-date register. It is clear they have it in mind. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause.—(LARGE ELECTORATES.)

(1) If at any time the electorate of a constituency is more than eighty thousand it shall be the duty of the appropriate Boundary Commission, after taking the necessary steps under subsection (4) of section two of the principal Act, to submit to the Secretary of State under subsection (3) of that section a report with respect to the area comprised in that constituency and in any neighbouring constituencies appearing to the Commission to be concerned.

(2) The appropriate Boundary Commission may in such a case recommend the creation of an additional constituency until the next general review.

(3) Subsection (5) of the said section two shall apply to a report submitted under this section:

Provided that the Secretary of State shall lay such a report before Parliament, whether or not the report states that no alteration is required to be made in respect of the part of the United Kingdom with which the Commission are concerned.

(5) In this section the expression "electorate" has the meaning attributed to it for the purpose of the rules set out in the Second Schedule to the principal Act.

(5) This section shall not apply to Northern Ireland or to any constituency in Great Britain, which appears to the appropriate Boundary Commission to be one to which Rule 6 of the said rules applies.

(6) This section shall have effect without prejudice to the generality of the said subsection (3).—[Mr. Parker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
In asking the Committee to accept this Clause I have Hornchurch particularly in mind. I understand that the electorate there is already 88,000, although in 1955 it was about the normal for other constituencies. There is every chance that by the time the next General Election takes place, under this Bill, say, in 1964,


the electorate in that area may be well over 100,000, possibly 120,000. The population is growing rapidly and there is plenty of room for building houses. I would have thought it undesirable that we should have an anomaly of this kind perpetuated for such a long time, and I suggest that we ought to take a decision upon it tonight.
I speak with feeling on this matter, having represented a large constituency before 1945. From 1935 to 1945, I was Member for the old division of Romford, which, in 1918, was a normal-sized constituency. Thanks, however, to the building of L.C.C. housing estates especially, and to other developments in the area, when I was elected for the area in 1935 the electorate was already 169,000 and it rose during the ten years to 1945 to 207,000. It had to be divided into four separate constituencies.
I suggest that there is a danger, not only in Hornchurch but elsewhere, of that kind of anomaly arising. New towns are under construction. Some of them may grow rapidly. I think, therefore, that we ought to take a decision about this example and also about the principle of the matter.
This Clause proposes that the Boundary Commission should be able to look at such a constituency—in fact, should be ordered to do so—when the electorate reaches the figure of 80,000. In this case, it could divide the constituency, here and now, into two constituencies of approximately 44,000 each. If it did that, both seats would be larger than many now existing. If it were possible to do that, the Boundary Commission could look at the matter again at the time of the next general review. What I am suggesting is that in such a case we should ask the Boundary Commission just to deal with that particular anomaly, to provide for an extra Member for the time being, and then to review the whole position when the general review takes place.
9.0 p.m.
Having an extra Member in the House for a few years would not matter very much, because it might be later decided to bring down the number to what it was before. The advantage of my proposal is that it would prevent having to alter the boundaries of all sorts of constituencies in order to find an extra seat for one group of constituents. That

is what we want to avoid and it is the purpose of the Bill to avoid altering boundaries all over the place and inconveniencing many Members by the sudden alteration of boundaries. My proposal would enable that to be avoided in a very practical way.
I ask the Government to tell us what they propose to do about the Hornchurch constituency, with its 88,000 electors and a growing electorate, and whether they could provide for an extra Member for that area, possibly taking into account immediately surrounding constituencies, but not others, and whether that would not be a sensible way out of the difficulty. I also ask the Government to say what they want to do on the principle of the matter as a whole.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I associate myself with most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). I, too, would like to know what is to be done about the constituency of Hornchurch. At the outset, I want to thank the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for his appreciation of the manner in which the people of Hornchurch are now being represented. I agree with him entirely.
The new Clause will bear serious consideration by the Government. Hornchurch is the perfect example of a constituency which has grown very rapidly since the war. Immediately after the war, there were 45,000 electors and there are now 87,000 out of a population of 116,000. If sixteen years are allowed to elapse before any attempt is made to deal with such a constituency, it must be generally admitted that the burden placed on the Member is nothing compared with the burden placed on the constituent trying to get representation through his Member. That is a great deal more important.
This afternoon, the Committee has given too much consideration to the Member and what he has to do and too little to the plight in which a constituent finds himself when he wants assistance from a Member who has to represent a number so large that he is precluded from giving personal attention to an individual case.
I was delighted that on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expressed the opinion—and his opinions in these


matters are always valuable, because of his long experience—that a constituency such as Hornchurch could be dealt with under existing powers. I believe that that is so and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was of the opinion that the Bill did not in any way take away the powers from the Act of 1949. It therefore seems that there is a power for the Boundary Commission to deal with a division such as mine.
So long as I can be assured that the assessors, to which the Secretary of State referred on Second Reading, will refer to the Boundary Commission the facts as they exist, then I am confident that Hornchurch will get a second Member. There is no difference of opinion in Hornchurch between its political parties, its Member of Parliament and its local council, so none of the alarming fears which have been mentioned previously today is justified.
I hope that the Minister will make it clear that the Boundary Commission has power to act. We are so often told by Ministers—of Governments of both parties—"There is nothing to worry about; the Boundary Commission", or whatever body it is, "will know exactly what its powers are, and it can act under those powers and all will be well." When the Act is on the Statute Book, however, and the people concerned ask for action and write to the Boundary Commission, or whoever it may be, they are told, "Unfortunately, we are precluded from acting." It is found that a phrase in the Act allows them to sit back and say, self-righteously, that they are prevented from acting.
It is the duty of a Member such as myself to make sure that that position does not arise when Hornchurch, either through its local council or myself, asks the Commission to consider sympathetically the matters which will undoubtedly be brought before it.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Lagden) has a very acute appreciation of the inspissated obscurantism and ineluctable obstinacy of all Governments. The question that we now have to consider is whether, in the light of those well-known facts, the Clause is necessary, like the journey in

the railway train. The Joint Under-Secretary has told us that it all depends, in practice, upon the operation of Section 2 (3) of the principal Act.
Although the Bill is now going through, that subsection has always been up there, watching over us. If it is not operating; if we have been watched without knowing it; if the Boundary Commission, in the active and continuous discharge of its functions has not been quite so invisible to the naked eye as it should have been, we are given cause to wonder whether it might not require what I called a tug at the coat, or the kind of inducement given it by the existence of a constituency swollen to the size of Hornchurch.
In short, if it is to act as wonderfully as we were told it would, despite the obstinacy of the Government in refusing every attempt to give it a prod, impulse, reminder, or whatever one likes to call it, how comes it that over all these years Hornchurch has been growing and growing and growing, and nobody has done a thing about it? Not a thing has been done; not even by the member of the Boundary Commission nominated by the Home Office; not even by the member of the Boundary Commission nominated by another Government Department; not even by the technical gentleman the Registrar-General, and what-not, who, till today, had been sitting as part of the Commission. They may have registered many things, but they have not registered the need to take any action about Hornchurch.
There it is. It has been always with us. Hornchurch has been growing; nothing has happened. Can the Government tell us, conclusively and finally, that such a change of heart has come over the institutions of this country, including, in this case, the Boundary Commission, that, for once in a way, it will do its continuous job without being prodded? I hope that they can tell us that; otherwise, it seems that much that they have been telling us in the past has been drawing wool over our eyes and deceiving us as to the extent of inertia inherent in all Governmental institutions.

Mr. Renton: When I saw this proposed new Clause on the Notice Paper, I little thought it was but a convenient way of pressing for another Member for Horn-church, but as the need of Hornchurch


for another Member has been suggested in the debate perhaps I should mention it.
One of the reasons, perhaps, why Hornchurch has not had a second Member as soon as it might have is the energy and ability displayed by my hon. Friend in representing with very great skill no fewer that 80,000 people. I feel that it was to a very large extent modesty on his part which caused him to join the clamour which has been raised on this new Clause, which itself has a very much wider purpose.
As I have been challenged to say something about what is to happen so far as Hornchurch is concerned, let me, first, reassure my hon. Friend that there is abundant power under the 1949 Act for the Boundary Commission to make an interim review. The fact that that power has not been used so far is no indication that it will not be used in future.
Those who are so anxious for the power to be used have had the procedure explained to them by me on an earlier Amendment. All that they have to do is to make representations to the Boundary Commission, and if they care to make them through my right hon. Friend, he will be glad to forward them.
I presume that, in spite of the fact that Hornchurch has loomed so large in this discussion, I must deal with the merits of the proposed new Clause, lest the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) should think I was in any way discourteous, especially when he has taken a certain amount of trouble. At first sight, it is rather tempting to deal with what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) called the "Fat Boys" in this way, but we would be highly selective if we decided that one particular reason for holding an interim review should be made the subject of this special procedure, when there are various other examples which have been mentioned in the course of the discussion on earlier Amendments, and which might

very well have been made the subject of special procedure, had such procedure been necessary.
My contention on this proposed Clause, as it was on a previous Amendment, is that no such procedure is necessary. The obligation of the Commission, as I said earlier, is a continuing one, as is clear from Section I (1) of the 1949 Act. The power to hold an interim review is an unfettered one, the opportunities provided for the Commission are unlimited, and, in these circumstances, there does not appear to be any need for the special procedure which the hon. Gentleman has suggested to the Committee.
My duty is to advise the Committee to reject the Clause, but, as I believe that this is the last proposal for amendment of the Bill that we shall be discussing this evening, may I say with great humility that, so far as I recollect, no Committee stage of any Bill of this kind dealing with the distribution of seats for the House of Commons has ever taken place in such an equable and pleasant atmosphere, nor, if I may say so with humility to the Chair, with such a tremendous regard for the rules of order. May I say, on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself, what a pleasure it has been to us to take part in such proceedings.

Question put and negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL

Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills to examine the Park Lane Improvement Bill with respect to the applicability of the Standing Orders relative to Private Business to the Amendments made to the Bill by the Standing Committee.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (HAMPSON INDUSTRIES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

9.15 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I wish to raise a constituency matter and, as we have just been hearing about the importance of constituency matters being represented in this House in the case of large constituencies, I hope that hon. Members will bear with me while I deal with this subject.
A firm in my constituency, Messrs. Hampson Industries, manufactures articles of great importance to the aircraft industry, and as long ago as July, 1955, it was invited to tender for a 20-kilowatt serving trolley. This is used in servicing aeroplanes to see that the electrical equipment is in proper condition. In September of that year Ministry of Supply officials visited the firm and said they found the work satisfactory. In fact they were impressed by the design which they saw. On 9th November Messrs. Hampson were told that the Ministry of Supply would decide later whether to give an order. Apparently the Ministry could not make up its mind at that time.
The Ministry continued in correspondence with the firm without saying that it had actually given the contract to another firm. That is rather a curious procedure. I do not know whether it is something which the Ministry often does—give a contract to one firm without telling the other firm and keep up correspondence with a firm which apparently had been rejected and give it the idea that it was still in the running.
After a time Messrs. Hampson objected to this and asked whether something could be done. They were told unofficially by a high-ranking civil servant that it would be to their advantage to make a unit as soon as possible. It seems a strange way of going about matters, but that was what the firm was told. Accordingly, a unit was made, but nothing happened. Some months elapsed and the next thing was that in early October, 1956, fifteen months after the firm was first asked to tender, the matter was mentioned, in conversation, to the present

Paymaster-General who at that time was the Minister of Supply.
As we know, the right hon. Gentleman is a man of great force and drive and he at once took action. He said that the unit was to be accepted as an alternative to the competitor's unit. That was something which had never been done before. On 30th October the Ministry of Supply, having, apparently, been prodded into this action by the Paymaster-General, asked Messrs. Hampson what they wanted. That would appear to be a curious request after all this time. Messrs. Hampson said that what they wanted was an order and that they had been trying to get their machine tested for months. The Ministry of Supply might well have been aware of this. Still, nothing happened until 6th December.
Then the Paymaster-General again looked into the matter. This time he met the managing director of the firm, as a result of which meeting he said that the firm was to go ahead and produce the machine and have it tested later. On 31st January, 1957, the unit was tested and found to be satisfactory. During the months that followed, the machine, which might have been of great service to the R.A.F., was not being produced. On 5th April, after agreement on prices, instructions were issued to the Ministry of Supply to collect the unit from the works. All tests were completed by the end of May. The R.A.F. was quite satisfied with them although the Ministry of Supply officials had previously given the impression that the machine was of no use at all.
Meanwhile a new Minister had arrived at the Ministry of Supply. The Paymaster-General had gone. No doubt the new Minister was occupied in settling in, and going into a number of other matters, besides the question of this machine. The matter was allowed to drop, and again there was delay. The next thing that happened was in August, 1957, some months afterwards, when Messrs. Hampson were asked for specifications and prices. The Ministry of Supply already had those in its possession, but again asked for them. The firm was asked to quote for certain additions, which it did. In October, 1957, the firm asked what had happened and was told that its tender would be accepted strictly on grounds of price and that it must reduce its price. This it did.
On 10th December, 1957, the firm was informed that its tender was declined, not on price at all but on delivery and on technical grounds, something quite different, which the firm had never been told about before. To say that the rejection was on technical grounds was rather curious, because the unit had previously been approved by the Ministry's own design department, and as to delivery it was the Ministry which had been responsible for two years' delay. It was equally strange therefore to turn down the offer on grounds of delivery.
In December, 1957, Hampson's approached me and I wrote to the Minister. The Minister replied:
You wrote to me on 16th December about the disappointment which Hampson Industries feel at the loss of the contract for a relatively small Air Ministry requirement of electrical servicing trolleys.
I suppose when one is running anything as big as a large Ministry, like the Ministry of Supply, one feels that a small firm and a small unit are of no importance. This is only a small firm; it has only 100 employees, but to the firm this was a large order, even if it was not so to a Minister of Supply, sitting at the head of the Ministry. Hampson's had spent no less than £8,000 on developing the trolley, and it kept the production space open all this time while the Ministry was making up its mind.
The Minister made a very curious remark in his letter. He said:
It would, I think, be undesirable, from all points of view, for the firm to be represented at our meeting.
In other words, I, the Member of Parliament, was not to take these gentlemen to the Minister because it would be undesirable. The curious thing is that the Paymaster-General had been willing to see them without the Member of Parliament. Why should it be undesirable for the present Minister to see them with their Member of Parliament. This is something very strange about which I should like to have an answer. The date for the meeting was fixed but then the meeting was postponed. I have no doubt the Minister was busy. He wrote to me and explained the situation.
I thought that the time had come when the matter should be brought to a head, and brought to a head in public. It is a lamentable state of affairs. It is true

that it concerns only a small order, but it is an order related to the safety of aeroplanes and should, therefore, be of great importance to the Ministry of Supply. Nearly three years have gone by. Why? I can only suppose that it is due to a lack of co-ordination not only between the Air Ministry, the R.A.F. and the Ministry of Supply but between the different departments in the Ministry of Supply itself.
So far as I understand the matter, the Ministry of Supply design office has the last word in all these things. At the head of that office there are two men, one of whom has admitted to Hampson's directors that he is unfamiliar with the unit concerned. So we are left with one man upon whose word, apparently, the fate of this order was to depend. This is, as I have said, a small machine. The Minister implies that it is unimportant but, though it is small, it is of great importance to aeroplanes.
If this happens in the case of a small machine, how are we to know that it does not happen in the case of large machines? If this happens with a servicing trolley, what happens with a bomber? This has revealed a state of affairs so unsatisfactory that something should be done about it. It points to something in the Ministry which might spread from small things to the very largest machines for which that Department is responsible.
The Prime Minister is a very busy man and has plenty to occupy him, but I think that he might take time off for at least an hour. Having gone into the affairs of the Ministry of Supply, I think that he would find that it well worth his while to order an inquiry into its organisation, to make quite certain that it is an organisation capable of dealing with such matters as this, and not, as many of us think it is today, an organisation that is defective in many respects.

9.27 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has raised an issue of great importance, because the basis of his case is that the Minister of Supply has discriminated unfairly against Hampson Industries in allocating contracts. This is a most serious allegation—

Mr. Dugdale: I want to make it quite clear that I am not saying that the


Ministry has discriminated with malice aforethought, but that this is due to lack of co-ordination, and incompetence, which is quite different.

Mr. Taylor: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman meant he certainly conveyed the impression that there had been unfair discrimination against this firm in the allocation of contracts. I repeat that that is a most serious allegation to make against a Government Department, and one that can be answered only after a most thorough-going investigation. I have made such a thorough investigation into all the facts of this case.
The right hon. Gentleman, some months ago, drew the attention of my right hon. Friend to a number of contracts about which the firm had complained. I have personally studied the circumstances in which each contract was placed, and the facts that I shall lay before the House tonight are based on the result of this careful and impartial examination. Before I do that, I should like to make one or two references to the implied charge of discourtesy on the part of my right hon. Friend and of officials of the Ministry that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman.
First, I should like to dispose of the suggestion that my right hon. Friend or my Department treated either the right hon. Gentleman or the firm with discourtesy. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the firm wrote to the Minister on four occasions last year, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of Ministerial office, would not suggest for a moment that a Minister should reply personally to every firm which is dissatisfied with its share of Government contracts. Each of these letters, with the exception of the last, received an acknowledgement or a reply of some kind from the Department, although I must admit—and I have read the correspondence—that those replies were not of a nature which could bring any comfort, in the circumstances, to Hampson Industries Ltd.
The answer to the final letter was on the point of being despatched when the right hon. Gentleman took up this matter with my right hon. Friend. He made an appointment to discuss this case in January of this year with my right hon. Friend. Unfortunately, at the last moment this appointment had to be cancelled because of pressure of urgent

business. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that it was not possible to arrange another appointment before he went on a trip abroad, but he was told that my right hon. Friend would be glad to see him as soon as possible after his return from India.
The right hon. Gentleman has not taken advantage of that offer and, if I may say so with all due respect to him and to the House, I think it is rather a pity that he did not do so, because I feel strongly that it is desirable that complicated and technical matters of this nature should not be discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons and that Departments should not be asked to justify in this way their judgment on tender competition before a Member has used every other means that he has at his disposal of obtaining satisfaction.
This is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, rather a small firm as firms go, in the national picture. Hampson Industries Ltd. is a small private company with an issued capital of £1,000 and it employs a labour force of about 100. It manufactures generating sets, water pumping sets and other electrical equipment of this type. During the last six or seven years the Ministry of Supply has placed a number of contracts with this firm for the repair, development and production of equipment to a total value of £90,000. I understand that the firm has also had other work for other Government Departments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that £90,000 worth of work which this firm has done for the Ministry of Supply is not an unsubstantial volume of work, having regard to the size of the firm.
In the correspondence, the right hon. Gentleman sent us details of seven tenders in which the firm considered that it had been treated unfairly. Let me say, at the outset, that in judging this tender competition, the Department is under no, obligation to accept the lowest tender, although, of course, we aim to do so where other factors are evenly balanced. Nevertheless, the form which is sent with each invitation to tender and which was sent to Hampson Industries Ltd. in each of the cases which we are discussing tonight, contains the following words:
The authority"—
and that means in this case the Minister of Supply—
shall be under no obligation to accept the lowest or any tender.


The Ministry of Supply, like any other purchaser, has to bear in mind such other factors as technical merit and dates of delivery.
I have referred to seven tender competitions which the firm has complained about. In one of these the firm has complained because it was not invited to tender. This was the case of a requirement for a large and complicated set. We restricted the competition to those firms with the greatest facilities for and experience in the work involved. In four of the remaining six cases the prices quoted by Hampson's were not the lowest. In some of these the firm's equipment did not meet the specification in that it was over weight, and the delivery dates were unsatisfactory. In the remaining two cases the equipment was required urgently by the Air Ministry and the only way of obtaining deliveries in time was to place the orders with the firms whose equipment had already been developed and tested to the required standards. Hampson's had no suitable equipment available at that point of time.
The right hon. Gentleman went into some detail about the big order, the order for the 20 kW ground service trolleys for aircraft. One of the last two competitions was for the 20 kW ground service trolley. This is the firm's main grievance, I believe, and the right hon. Gentleman went into it in some detail, and I think I ought to give him the full facts about this equipment. He went through the whole story as he has it, with the dates and the state of development, the competition, alternative equipment, and so on, and I hope he will follow me when I give him the details as I have sifted them out of this long and complicated record.
This trolley is a mobile generator which provides the power and testing equipment for servicing Javelin all-weather fighters. The story goes back to 1955, when the Air Ministry's technical requirement called for the development of a prototype to be completed before Javelins came into service. Tenders were received in August, 1955, of which only those by Hampson's and one other firm were technically acceptable, Hampson's quoting, in this case, the lower price. First deliveries were, however, required urgently by the Air Ministry, and since the other firm had offered better delivery dates it was decided to accept its tender.

The development was completed satisfactorily by this firm and a production order was subsequently placed with it.
Secondly, in May, 1956, Hampson's informed the Ministry of Supply that it was developing a trolley to meet this requirement as a private venture. That means that there was no Ministry of Supply or Government money involved in the undertaking. The firm foresaw, by developing this private venture, considerable prospects of worldwide business. It was, of course, made clear to the firm that the Department was under no obligation to order this equipment at any stage. It was purely a venture on the firm's part, freely entered into in the ordinary way of private enterprise in an effort to improve the firm's business.
Hampson's development went on for another year after that, and the set did not become available in a form suitable for trials until April, 1957. Works tests and service trials were then carried out during the following months and completed by August, 1957. These proved that the equipment Hampson's had submitted would, subject to minor alterations, meet the requirement, but I cannot agree that the Service trials proved that the Hampson trolley was in any way superior to any other trolley produced at that time, a claim which has often been made by the firm.
These trials showed, in fact, that there was very little, if anything, to choose technically between this trolley and the one already on order. A specification framed to include the Hampson design was drawn up and Hampson's and the firm already in production were invited to tender, each to its own design, for a production order in September, 1957.
The other firm which had previously received a development and production contract from the Department submitted a lower tender, but before the contract was awarded Hampson's represented to the Department that it had tendered to a higher quality than the other firm. To meet Hampson's, both firms were given an opportunity of revising their tenders. I must say, as one with some experience of these matters, that that seems to me to be going quite a long way after a tender has been received. The firm can clearly read what is involved in the specification. To be given an opportunity to go back and resubmit a tender to fit in with some


other competitor seems to me to be going rather further than I personally would have been prepared to go with any firm with which I was connected before I came to this House.
As I have said, both firms were given an opportunity of revising their tenders. The other firm confirmed its previous tender, but Hampson's introduced lower standard components and submitted a slightly lower tender. However, the revised Hampson set provided for a large number of new components and would have required at least four months' further trials before production could start. The Air Ministry said that it was unable to accept further delay, so the contract was given to the other firm.
The conclusion to which I have come after a very careful study of all this rather complicated evidence is that the officials of the Ministry of Supply confirmed have been scrupulously fair in the decisions they have made. Indeed, I might almost say that they have gone out of their way to meet Hampson's and to ensure that firm getting a square deal in our tender considerations.
Since the right hon. Gentleman has been frank in making his allegations against the Department—he was not very kind at the end of his speech—I hope he will not mind if I am equally frank. Hampson's has complained to the Department every time it has been unsuccessful in tendering for our orders. We have endeavoured to satisfy the firm by explaining the grounds on which its tenders have been rejected. I am sorry that the firm remains dissatisfied. I have been engaged in the engineering business for many years and, in my time, have submitted a great many tenders. I have also missed a great many orders. Indeed, I should have been better off if I had missed some of those I received. However, few of us are fortunate enough to be able to guarantee success in everything we do. We cannot be successful all the time. That is really the short story of this case.
Of course, it is disappointing when a tender is rejected, but one has to learn to accept these disappointments and to take them with good grace. It is no good making accusations of discrimination or unfairness every time one loses a tender. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is unfair to the officials concerned

to make very vague allegations without the slightest evidence with which to support them. If he can produce real evidence as to individuals, dates and times which bears investigation, or calls for investigation, I shall be very glad to look into the matter further. But I can find not a shred of evidence of favouritism or discrimination in our dealings with this firm.
As I said before, Hampson's has, in the past, received a substantial amount of work from us, and we shall continue to consider the firm for future contracts on its merits. I can only express the hope that, in the light of our debate this evening, the right hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that our relations with the firm will, as far as we are concerned, continue to be friendly, and I hope that we may proceed in future to do business in a happy and amicable spirit. I should like to add that if this kind of matter were taken to a logical conclusion and every contract was the subject of discussion here, we should get into a really intolerable situation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me a specific question. Why, he asked, did the former Minister of Supply, the present Paymaster-General, see the firm without a Member of Parliament, and why did my right hon. Friend refuse to see the firm with a Member of Parliament? I repeat that if every firm which had dealings with the Ministry of Supply sought personal interviews with the Minister, with or without their Members, life would be quite intolerable. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss, or feel in any way offended because of the quite reasonable actions my right hon. Friend has taken in this case.

Mr. Dugdale: I do not, and I sincerely hope that the Paymaster-General does not, take amiss the remarks which have just been made about him.

Mr. Taylor: I hope so, too. Nothing I have said could give any offence to the Paymaster-General. It is merely a question of personal judgment. The Paymaster-General judged it in one way, and my right hon. Friend judged it in another. I meant nothing which could give offence to my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Ten o'clock.